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


 * 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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC).

List of tallest buildings in Shenzhen

 * Nominator(s): Wishva de Silva (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This list is considerably better than most tallest buildings lists of cities in China. It also has quite a long list of references. Wishva de Silva (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Great list, but I do have quite a few recommendations.
 * Why are some buildings linked to wiki pages that don't exist, and some are not. They should either be all linked in anticipation of future articles, or not linked at all.
 * Outdated phrasing should be removed. Featured lists no longer start with "The following is a list of..." as it is rather tautological.
 * Over time, I have seen many of these tallest buildings list decay and find that the biggest issue is the "approved" and "proposed" sections. They are very unreliable, and subject to change. I would eliminate them completely as per the policy of WP:CRYSTAL and report a list of only buildings that actually exist, not some random plan of an architect. Mattximus (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the gallery would be best removed and the images placed along the right side of the table. The table is not so wide that it would not fit.
 * There are citation needed tags
 * I'm not sure an "under construction" section should exist, but if it is necessary, buildings without firm completion dates need to be removed for now.
 * The last 5 references appear to be incomplete citations.
 * This is just a first pass of important edits. I will happily look at it again. Mattximus (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions, I have fixed a number of the issues you pointed out. I agree that the Approved and Proposed sections may be very unreliable over time, but would it be disrespectful to those editors who created these sections? Wishva de Silva (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Those were quick edits! Quick note, I think the photos should go to the right of the list, not as a column in the list itself. Simply because not all buildings have pictures. And as for the approved/proposed, I saw one list that had maybe 12-15 proposed buildings, all of which were cancelled. So it's not a very encyclopaedic section if they are imaginary. It is my opinion that wikipedia should report on things that exist, not things that might exist. As soon as the building is well under construction should it be included. Another way of looking at it is that I suggest removing the approved/proposed buildings for now, once they are being built they can be put back. Mattximus (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for this rather late reply. Well, I do not entirely agree. Since if you would look at skyscraper lists for almost all major cities they almost certainly have these Proposed/Approved sections (eg New York and Los Angeles), a large portion of them of them are featured lists as well. If deletion is necessary we should discuss with others first. As long as there's someone to update the information on a timely manner this wouldn't be a significant issue--which I probably can do. Wishva de Silva (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I just checked a bunch randomly: List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque, List of tallest buildings in Atlanta, List of tallest buildings in Baltimore all do not have them. I really think it runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL... no real encyclopedia will list potential buildings that might be build in the future (but probably not). It's just not appropriate. I'm happy to see what others say. Again, once they are actually under construction then they can be added to the list. Mattximus (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Looks like the user has given up on nomination and not addressed issues like bare urls. Mattximus (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, not yet. Sorry, I almost forgot about this nomination to be honest. Anyway, regarding the Approved/Proposed sections, it would not be constructive to argue about these matters and after another thought, I think you have a point there. I'll delete them first, and if necessary I may start a discussion to explain on the lists' talk page if somebody viewed by edit and reverted it.  Wishva de Silva  (talk)  12:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Bare urls, I also had problems against to the translated titles (also publisher, newspaper, author etc.). Yes, I could accept translated titles, but not without their original one, if you have to tranlating them (I prefer only keep the original title), then please using trans_title, keep the original.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree these titles should not be translated. Can you give me the URLs with such titles so I can fix them? I have also fixed the Bare URL issue you pointed out.  Wishva de Silva  (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

do you plan on returning to this nomination to address the reviewers' concerns, or should this nomination be closed? -- Pres N  20:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just fix one myself, you should least check every sources to make sure they all have proper template (cite web, news or journal), title, publishing date, newspaper (journal, work etc.), publisher (via etc.).--Jarodalien (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I apologize for not responding lately. Thanks for Ping-ing me. I wasn't giving up on the nomination...Let me see if I could do some fixing to the page.  Wishva de Silva  (talk)  11:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not ready for FL status yet, still needs a lot of work. Articled hasn't been edited in 9 days and nominator hasn't commented here in the same timeframe.   it may be time to archive this nomination to keep things moving forward.  « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  23:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wanted to give the nom some time since they said that they'd come back to this, but it looks like it's not going to happen anytime soon. Wishva: no problem with you renominating if you ever get around to fixing up the issues raised by reviewers. -- Pres N  00:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.