This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Over the last couple of weeks, I appear to have got myself into a content dispute on the Skyscraper article. Before it gets as bad as an edit-war, I would like to seek additional opinions and if possible come to some agreement over the article content.

The dispute centres around the content of the History section, and in particular whether or not that section should mention non-skyscraper structures/buildings. The main people involved are:

• Gun Powder Ma ( talk · contribs) - is of the opinion that because the article is about skyscrapers, non-skyscraper structures and buildings have no place there.
• Astronaut ( talk · contribs) - is of the opinion that brief mentions of non-skyscraper structures and buildings help put the history of skyscrapers into its historical context.

There has already been some discussion at Talk:Skyscraper#Are Pyramids Skycrapers?, but I fear the discussion is starting to polarise with no consensus or compromise to be found. Therefore, I am seeking some other opinions to help Gun Powder Ma and I come to some agreement over the article content. Many thanks. Astronaut ( talk) 15:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading through the article and its discussion under 'Are Pyramids Skycrapers?' I have to say I fully agree with Astronaut on this one. He has mentioned several times that he knows pyramids are not skyscrapers, yet the discussion keeps swaying to try and prove they are not. Gun Powder Ma said "By your [Astronaut's] reasoning, we could also include churches, lighthouses, mosques, donjons and pagodas etc. etc." and of course, I believe if these structures helped compare skyscrapers and place them in some historical context, they should most definitely be added to the article. The fact of the matter is, the Great Pyramids are extremely well known and are often used for comparison with many tall structures and even mountains. They should be left in this article, not because they are skyscrapers, but because they provide very relevant comparisons. In this case, Template:examplefarm should be removed, also. -- timsdad ^(talk) 23:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is about skyscrapers. Fine. The section "Before the 19th century" is about predecessor of skyscrapers. Fine, too. But the pyramids are only about predecessors of predecessors of skyscrapers. This is way beyond the scope of the article. If the pyramids keep kept in the article, we will sooner or later read there about other non-inhabited high rise buildings such as church towers, minarets, lighthouses, etc. etc. This has very little to do with the glass and steel structures we refer to as skyscrapers. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 01:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because the pyramids should be kept in the article, it doesn't mean we have to start adding other non-skyscraper structures. As I said before, the pyramids are a very good comparison to modern day skyscrapers, it's the perfect comparison between the oldest and the newest. More recent tall structures are less well known and aren't necessary for comparison. -- timsdad ^(talk) 01:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a totally subjective view. Why should the Pharos be less relevant than the pyramids? Isn't it also one of the 7 ancient world wonders? And the largest lighthouse to date. And the Gothic cathedrals held for hundreds of years the world record for the largest buildings. Who says they are less relevant than the pyramids? It is much better to follow the definition given in the lead, and remove all other examples, than to annoy readers with a collection of irrelevant examples. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 01:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, List of tallest buildings and structures in Tokyo is up for WP:FL status here. Thought the project might be interested. Thanks! -- Torsodog ^Talk 19:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any system of which height should be used? Some pages ( Burj Dubai, Madinat al-Hareer and Hearst Tower (New York City)) use "Metre (Feet)" while others ( World Trade Center Tower 5 and Freedom Tower) use "Feet (Metre)". (I know this question is a little fuzzy, hopefully people will understand)

Also should the Turning Torso change infobox from modern building to skyscraper?

Ameki ( talk) 16:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In most cases, Metre (Feet) is used for buildings outside of the United States, and the Imperial form first "Feet (Meter)" - to use the American spelling - is only used for buildings, along with any length, ie. "Mile (Kilometer)" rather than "Kilometre (Mile)". And yes, I believe that the Turning Torso should most definitely use the skyscraper infobox as it clearly classifies as a skyscraper, and that particular infobox is much more informative. -- timsdad ^(talk) 06:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This comment appeared recently on the Skyscraper talk page. I agree with the IP/anon editor, but does anyone else dislike the term "supertall"? Astronaut ( talk) 12:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's a pretty silly word, but I'm only against removing it as there are templates such as Template:Supertall, Template:Supertall skyscrapers and Template:Supertall proposed skyscrapers (I think this last one should be deleted altogether, there are too many proposed skyscrapers over 300 m, see Template talk:Supertall skyscrapers). Is there an alternative word or term? -- timsdad ^(talk)

Review of Talk:September_11_attacks#Conspiracy_theories would be appreciated. The debate here is not about whether the existence of non-mainstream "conspiracy" theories should be mentioned at all, but rather about whether they should be put in context. By "context," I mean the fact that "conspiracy" approaches have been both rejected and accepted by notable entities. In other words, I mean that which is being removed here and restored here. My position is that the National Institute of Standards and Technology and "the community of civil engineers" (both of which have opposed non-mainstream theories) and a third of the American public (which supports these theories), as reported by Time magazine (which even goes so far as to call them "mainstream," but not so far as to voice its own support of them) are all notable enough to mention. My position is that this balance is fully in accord with the spirit of WP:NPOV, and especially in accord with its WP:DUE section, which states that "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" and therefore, as far as I can tell, encourages the attribution of the minority perspective, regardless of how true or false that perspective may ultimately turn out to be. Indeed, in this debate I have cited WP:V, which states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Those who oppose the contextualization of these theories have also pointed to WP:DUE, but in a way that I view to be mistaken--namely, by suggesting that reliable sources should back a theory, while WP:DUE emphasizes the extent to which theories are held, regardless of their veracity, rather than "backed" by any particular types of evidence. Thanks, Cosmic Latte ( talk) 01:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: For those who do not share my position (although the spirit of it also applies to those who do), I've made what I feel to be a basic--yet an important--suggestion in this diff on the 9/11 talk page. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 03:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb { ^ταλκ _{κοντριβς} –  WP Physics} 09:40, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

I have created this article, please feel free to give advice and check grammar. Thanks! It is List of tallest buildings in Benidorm. OboeCrack ( talk) 15:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I get some additional feedback on a discussion here. Thanks! Kaldari ( talk) 19:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I nominated List of tallest buildings in San Diego at FLC a few days ago after working on it for the last few weeks. Feel free to let me know if you notice any errors or weigh in at the nomination page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 07:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Brookfield Properties operates the Cullen Center. It includes two buildings which have their own Wikipedia articles: KBR Tower and Continental Center I. Should those two buildings be merged into Cullen Center? WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed Joffrey Tower for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I recently reverted edits by User:Nabil rais2008 on The tallest buildings in the world past, present and future adding graphs uploaded by someone else. It's come to my attention that Nabil rais has been banned from uploading images, and it appears that this other editor has uploaded the images created by Nabil rais. As I'll be away from Wikipedia for 5 days now, I was hoping somebody might be able to look into this. It would be much appreciated. As my edit was reverted because I thought the graphs were found on the CTBUH article, the images can be found on the article. I'm also not sure if Nabil rais can recreate graphs from an online source and claim them as his own (even though the uploader claims they're his, in the licensing). Sorry, this might not make much sense, I'm in a bit of a rush. Thanks in advance, timsdad ^(talk) 21:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up - I've listed all of the images in question at WP:PUI. Cheers, Rai• me 21:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed Chicago Spire for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 01:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The only editor with over 25 edits on this article and the only editor with more than 5 edits who has edited the article in 2009, Chupper, has retired. I believe that this is an important article for WP:SKY, is anyone interested in taking over this article to save its GA-class rating?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 02:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: I went ahead and updated/fixed all of the references in the article. The article has been kept as a GA. Cheers, Rai• me 01:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In case this project wasn't aware of it already, there is an ongoing mass AfD nomination here for List of tallest buildings in Amarillo and several others; also a separate one for List of tallest buildings in Lubbock. Altairisfar _talk 03:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There are currently two tallest buildings lists at FLC, List of tallest buildings in Singapore ( nom) and List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas ( nom), and it would be useful if editors with more knowledge of the subject could take a look. Thank you. -- Jpeeling ( talk) 16:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be grateful for comment on the notability of this article about a cancelled tower proposal in Cardiff. Although the tower would have been the tallest in Wales, it doesn't appear that it would have been architecturally significant or influential. Another editor raised the issue at Wikiproject Architecture. Thanks. Pondle ( talk) 10:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In an ongoing discussion here between an IP editor and myself, it has been decided that any lists of countries' buildings and structures will be renamed to List of tallest structures in [Country]. The same issue is present for the list of tallest buildings and structures in the world, which, rather than simple lists like the list of tallest structures in the world and the list of tallest buildings in the world, contains several different lists as a single list would be more or less identical to the structures list. I'm beginning this discussion to interest other editors in assisting us in thinking of a new name for the List of tallest buildings and structures in the world article. -- timsdad ^(talk) 04:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please list suggestions below:

• Lists of buildings and structures
• Categories of tall structures

Meaning of "structure"

Though mentioned in the linked discussion above, it may be worth also prompting here a specific discussion about the meaning of the word "structure" in these "tallest building/structure" articles. In my vocabulary, every building is a structure (but not vice versa), so "buildings and structures" does not make very much sense ("buildings and other structures" would be fine). However, the usage in article titles and in the bodies of articles currently seems inconsistent. In some places, the unqualified word "structure" seems to be used to mean "any structure other than a building", and in other places it seems to include buildings. What are people's views on this? 81.129.130.117 ( talk) 14:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC).

This article, which has come to my attention, is incorrectly named and contains both buildings and structures. The list of tallest structures in the Middle East is very similar. What are peoples' thoughts on this? Should it be proposed for deletion? -- timsdad ^(talk) 06:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The current FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/archive3 is getting fairly mature. We just finally overcame an oppose from one of the toughest reviewers on WP, but need some supports to get the article approved.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Holiday Inn, Townsville is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holiday Inn, Townsville. While the building is not very tall by the standards of New York City or Dubai, it is reportedly the tallest building in Townsville. Improvement to the article and comments in the AfD would both be welcome. - Eastmain ( talk) 03:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)