Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

New Image?

I think we should pick a new, central image to use for this project, for use on the main project page, the project banner, and a userbox. Of course, we could also use separate images for each. We should probably use an image of a famous skyscraper, at least IMO. Simply add new images to the gallery below if you think they should be considered.

Some ideas:

  • 1 - 30 St Mary Axe
    1 - 30 St Mary Axe
  • 2 - Burj Dubai
    2 - Burj Dubai
  • 3 - Bank of China Tower / Cheung Kong Center
    3 - Bank of China Tower / Cheung Kong Center
  • 4 - Commerzbank Tower / Maintower
    4 - Commerzbank Tower / Maintower
  • 5a - Empire State Building / Chrysler Building (current)
    5a - Empire State Building / Chrysler Building (current)
  • 5b - Empire State Building (current)
    5b - Empire State Building (current)
  • 6 - Four Seasons Miami - Withdrawn due to Copyright Violation
    6 - Four Seasons Miami - Withdrawn due to Copyright Violation
  • 7 - Jin Mao Building
    7 - Jin Mao Building
  • 8 - John Hancock Center
    8 - John Hancock Center
  • 9 - One Wall Centre (current)
    9 - One Wall Centre (current)
  • 10 - Petronas Towers (current)
    10 - Petronas Towers (current)
  • 11 - Sears Tower
    11 - Sears Tower
  • 12 - Taipei 101
    12 - Taipei 101
  • 13 - Tour Montparnasse
    13 - Tour Montparnasse
  • 14 - Transamerica Pyramid
    14 - Transamerica Pyramid
  • 15 - Turning Torso
    15 - Turning Torso

Vote

  • Comment I'd say we go with the Taipei 101 picture until the Burj Dubai is complete for the central image. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 16:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I am not sure if we should use an image of a building simply because that building is the official tallest. Yes, Taipei 101 is tallest, but the image is not great. For best images, I would say that honor goes to either the Petronas Towers, the Sears Tower, or the Four Seasons Miami. Perhaps we should use criteria besides height to determine which buildings to include? But that is just my opinion. If we were to go with the most famous building, I would probably say the Empire State Building. Rai-me 22:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Image 6, Four Seasons Miami, has been removed from the list, as it is apparently a copyrighted image being claimed under free use, and will likely be deleted. Rai-me 19:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like Image:Empire State Building3 Dec.2005.jpg, but cropped, so the image focuses in on the ESB. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 02:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

How is this? I would be happy to make any adjustments to the image, but I am still not convinced that it is better to use than the current ESB/Chrysler image. Rai-me 03:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I like the cropped image. But, I think we should go with a picture of teh CN Tower unless that's not in our scope. Æetlr Creejl 02:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It is in our scope, but I don't think it is the image most closely associated with "skyscrapers", which more or less implies buildings. Perhaps we could use both on the main page? I have used the Petronas Towers image on the project banner, as the cropped ESB one was too narrow and the Petronas are already used on the userbox. Anyone disagree? Cheers, Rai-me 12:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Greetings!

I decided I would join your project after seeing it posted on the proposals list. I look the liberty of creating a userbox, if you don't like the image I chose it is very easy to change it to a preferred one. All members can now use {{User WP Skyscrapers}} to generate the userbox and hopefully this project can really get going as it has a huge yet very central scope.

This user participates in
WikiProject Skyscrapers.

└and-rew┘┌talk┐ 06:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a great userbox. I will create a project banner soon, I just don't have enough time at the moment. Does anyone think this project is almost ready/already to move to the Wikipedia space? Rai-me 02:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's go, although I am bogged down with 'midterm madness'. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 05:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
As my first contribution to the project, I have updated the link on the userbox to point to the project page in the main Wikipedia space. Astronaut 13:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured topic drive

For any interested users, Hydrogen Iodide and I have organized a Featured topic drive related to United States tallest building lists. All information can be found here, in my sandbox. When this project moves to the Wikipedia space, then we can create a separate page. Any more participation would be greatly appreciated, and hopefully we can organize more FTDs (i.e. with Canadian, European, Chinese building lists) in the future. Thanks! Rai-me 02:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Template time

Since this project has been moved to the wiki space, I think it's about time to create all of the necessary template. I think there needs to be an invitation template, a project banner (for lists, images, categories, project pages, and templates, in addition to the article template). Any comments? Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 06:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything except the creation of a list template. It is very common for lists to be assessed as "list-class" articles, and for FLs to be assessed as FAs. I see no reason why we need a separate list tempate. But I agree on all other accounts. We also could use a welcome banner and stub templates. I will get working on them soon. Cheers, Rai-me 12:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment, the project banner, for articles and list, could use unref=yes to mark articles that lack references. I think that is better than {{unreferenced}} tag on the main article page. Comments? Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 05:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done, added the code for unref=yes. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 06:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ratings and importance

There is presently no ratings scale or importance scale for these articles. I assume we'll be using the same quality scheme:

WikiProject article quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.[under discussion] Cleopatra
(as of June 2018)
 FL The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available. List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events
(as of May 2018)
 A The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).
 Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
 GA The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
A good article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. Discovery of the neutron
(as of April 2019)
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. Psychology
(as of January 2024)
C The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
 Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. Wing
(as of June 2018)
Start An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
  • A useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Ball
(as of September 2014)
Stub A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. List of literary movements

but we need a way to prioritize the Burj Dubai over the Wells Fargo Center.--Loodog 14:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've been trying to keep Burj Dubai up to date and free of vandalism. I would like to see it achieve Featured Article status soon after the buiding's completion and/or opening, but I'm unsure how to improve it whilst the building is still under construction. Astronaut 15:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that cetrain articles such as Burj Dubai, Taipei 101, and the CN Tower need to be prioritized over other, much less notable buildings. There will soon be an assessment page (the project banner already has redlinks to the pages), but no one has had the time to create it yet. But until then, we can still assess the Burj Dubai as "Top" and the Wells Fargo Center as "Low" for importance. Cheers, Rai-me 22:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

CBD/Downtown

Are central business districts/downtown areas part of the scope of this project? Æetlr Creejl 07:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would say so, as most CDBs have plenty of skyscrapers and high-rises. Rai-me 14:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone in?

Hello! I'm Simalto, Sim B on the French wikipedia. I'm mainly a French contributor, still in the skyscrapers category, but as I'm hanging around on this wikipedia too I wondered if I could join the project. I've already created a couple articles on the subject, and I can translate skyscrapers articles from French to English (yes, there are articles that exist on the FR wikipedia that don't here! The ones I created some days ago did.) I will spot those articles in need of a tag, and help contribute!

So, I wondered if I could just enter my name and start participating. Yours, Simalto (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can join; it is not required to request membership. Also, you can contribute while not having your name listed under participants. Third, I am sure all WikiProject Skyscraper members welcome editors that can translate articles. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 07:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review and Afd debate

Four Points by Sheraton (Dubai) is up for deletion review. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 07:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There are three opposes and three endorses. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 09:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Article is up for Afd discussion, which can be found here. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 08:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Result was no consensus, default to keep. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 22:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

More stuff up for Afd

Executive Towers article deleted already. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 02:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
And World Trade Centre Residence and Tamwell Tower for a second time (speedy deleted articles were recreated and put on Afd again. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)
Result was no consensus. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 07:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Several more buildings in Dubai for deletion

Result was keep. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Result was keep. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Result was keep. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Result was keep. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Result was keep. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

List for deletion

*The Fort Collins list is up for deletion. Cheers. Trance addict 03:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC) List deleted. Cheers. Trance addict 04:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Skyscrapers/Archive_1&oldid=1047177225"