Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Detroit/archive1

List of tallest buildings in Detroit
Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Boston and List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai - me  22:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 *  Object Support the WP:CAPTIONS are boring and redundant. They should vary.  E.G. "The Fisher Building (Detroit's 13th tallest) was named a National Historic Landmark in 1989."  Give us some tidbit with each caption to point out a few interesting buildings to look at more closely.
 * ❌ - That information would have nothing to do with the content of the list. The list is about building height, not about buildings which are National Historical Landmarks or other interesting tidbits. WP:CAPTION states that captions must be "relevant to the article", and all that is relevant here is height. Cheers, Rai - me  01:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is that you have selected a few notable buildings to show pictures of on the side. The fact that a couple of buildings are interesting for reasons other than being Nth tallest is relevant.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't, at least not on this page. In the past, I would have agreed with you. You can check the List of tallest buildings in Providence FLC to see why the tidbits (which I had originally added myself) were removed. Interesting facts belong on building articles, but are not relevant to list that pertains to building height. Rai - me  21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would certainly like to revive consideration of exemplary captions (captions that show examples of notable buildings describing their notability). I think you may have chosen a bad caption with the TV show example and thus been encouraged to scrap using such captions.  In general, I think they are desirable and would like to entertain debate on the issue.  It looks like User:Circeus may have been against the captions chosen.  It is not clear that nothing but the rank is relevant to the article, IMO.  CALLING CIRCEUS TO THE DISCUSSION HEREWITH.  I believe it was he who helped me make List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry interesting with captioned pictures on the side.  I then used a similar technique at List of Chicago Landmarks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I now agree that those notes (they actually were not captions) were and still are irrelevant. It think it is pretty clear that nothing but the rank is relevant to the article, as it is a list of tallest buildings, which is organized by height, and not simply a list of buildings, where inclusion is based on notability. However, I agree that re-opening discussion would be a good idea. See also the discussion found at the List of tallest buildings in Boston FLC, which also originally had many informative tidbits. Rai - me  21:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that the comments here relate to two rather different elements from each oters and the current case (in the Providence FLC, I commented on irrelevant, material in the "notes" column of the table, while in Dallas, I complained that it was too ambiguous for the unacquainted reader to tell, in the lead image, whichbuildings were being named), I will stay neutral here, although I can see where the "drabness" comes from, the captions as is seem fine to me. Circeus 01:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anything discussed here relates to the lead image. It only pertains to the addition of non-height related information to individual building image captions. But yes, the issues in the Providence and Boston lists were related to the Notes column, not captions; sorry if I did make that clear. But, if a "tidbit" is not relevant in the Notes column, IMO it probably is not relevant as a caption either. Rai - me  04:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My aforementioned list of landmarks would have to be changed so that each caption said XXX became a land mark on MMDDYYYY to be consistent with this logic, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 03:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to place this in the above discussion? Anyway, the logic is already true for many FLs such as the hockey trophy lists (Lady Byng Memorial Trophy, Hart Memorial Trophy, Calder Memorial Trophy, Conn Smythe Trophy, et.) which only state award winners' names and their number of wins/year of win. I would consider these captions very consistent with the "relevance" logic used in the tallest building lists. Rai - me  03:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do all those tallest building claims mean tallest in Detroit? Michigan? What?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that it is the city of Detroit, not all of Michigan, per the title of the list and the lead. The same goes for the "Timeline of tallest buildings" section. The only places that count tallest buildings in Michigan are very clearly stated: "tallest in the city and the state since 1977..." Specifically what part did you find confusing? Thank you for your review, Rai - me  01:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that "Tallest building" should say "Tallest Detroit building" in each decade reference. It would be cleaner.  Suppose you did this for a city with monstrous buildings like NY or Chicago where it might be the tallest for a decade in the country it would be an important distinction.  It would just be cleaner if you made this slight change.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO, this would extremely redundant. The list clearly pertains to Detroit buildings, with no clarification needed, per the name of the list. Changing it would be very repetitive and inconsistent with other lists. If a building was the tallest in the country, then it would be clearly stated. Rai - me  21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP articles should always be written from the viewpoint of the international reader. The point is that a list like this is particularly interesting to people from cities with tall buildings.  I have lived in Chicago since September 2000 and lived in New York City for 5 years.  When I read the statements, I was confused because a similar article for either of the cities from which I draw my perspective could have buildings that say Tallest building of YYYYs decade meaning for the United States or the world.  Many people who will find this list interesting will be from similar cities.  The statement as written is incorrect.  At the very least the first use of the phrase should say "Tallest Detroit building".  It would be preferable if they all did, but at the very least the first use of the phrase should be corrected.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have added clarification for every entry. While I still disgree, and feel that it is unnecessary, I can see your point and can also see where some readers could get confused. Thanks, Rai - me  20:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Raime, I'm usually the first to complain when such material is present (although at least it's not in headers here.). Circeus 01:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * comment why does the Rank column not sort correctly?  Also, Rank 3 building appears to have the feet/meters numbers reversed, resulting in incorrect sorting Hmains 06:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The ranking seems to work fine to me. What is incorrectly sorting on yours? Keep in mind that there are several tied buildings with equal ranks. And ✅, I have fixed the height of the Penobscot Building. Thank you for your review, Rai - me  11:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If I just sort on rank (up/down), all is fine. If I sort on the height column and get lowest height first, all is fine, but if I immediately follow that sort by a new sort on the rank column, then all is not fine.  This height column sorting seems to be the only column that interacts with the rank column sorting in this way.  Hmains 01:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I have made some adjustments, and I think that the error is now fixed. Rai - me  23:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Idea: Maybe give the standard ranking under the "tallest by spire" listing? That way the differences are easier to spot. Circeus 01:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ - good idea. Rai - me  23:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * support a well done list Hmains (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)