Talk:List of tallest buildings in Atlanta

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

ALT text missing

The images featured in this list are missing ALT text that has recently become one of the points of the Featured list criteria. The list therefore fails 5b of the Featured list criteria and should have ALT text added to keep its status.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Number of High Rises

I checked the citation for this number and found the link claims there to be 258 high rises. However the real number is much smaller, as this list contains buildings that have been demolished, never built, or simply proposed. Anyone know a more reliable source? Mattximus (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed section

I'm not sure it's appropriate to have a speculative, unsourced "proposed" section. These sections are not very encyclopedic, as many (most?) never end up built, or if they are built, modified from the proposed form. It runs afoul of Wikipedia:CRYSTAL, even if sources are found. This is a list of tallest buildings, not a list of imaginary/potential buildings. Mattximus (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tallest buildings in Atlanta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070512225807/http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=peachtreesummit to http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=peachtreesummit

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Tallest under construction

This list is outdated. The current entries should be merged with the main list, and new ones added as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.31.201.66 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Early January 2020 Update

So I already went over some of the basic stuff in the edit summary. Additionally, {{note}} and {{note label}} were also deprecated and so I replaced with the current {{efn-ua}}. A lot of this was just going through references, or finding new ones as many were dead, or did not support the data, i.e. failed verification. For just two examples see [1] and [2]. As I did so I updated the archived link or added one if it did not exist. Some data was changed by a small amount to match sources as I checked usually due to updates. I have not yet taken the time to update the main page photo with something newer, because I don't know a quick and easy way to make appropriately accurate image maps. I removed the bit about Sandy Springs having the tallest suburban buildings in the country, because the reference didn't support it. Whether or not it's still true largely depends on whether Sunny Isles Beach is classified as suburban or not, in any event the relevance to the article as a whole is low.

I also took the liberty of replacing Emporis. There was some discussion last year, and even earlier about its reliability due to accepting user-generated content, albeit with periodic review. I think it's in talk page or RSN archives now for the most-part, but the general conclusion as I recall was Marginally Reliable, and so OK in a pinch, but better sources preferred where available. However for the most part it did not make a difference as when I had to remove entries, neither the old, nor the new source supported them having an architectural height of more than 400 feet e.g. [3] [4] [5] [6].

I,m a little short on time now, I might be able to get back to this in a day or two so if you have any questions, or any other requests for improvement please ask, and I'll try to get back to you when I next have time, thanks.

𝒬𝔔 22:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Please allow a few days for replies, I can usually respond within the week.

@Mattximus and Lchader: I noticed that both of you have been active in helping to maintain this article, and thanks for that by the way, so I was seeking your opinion on some further changes. One is a general question as to anything else you think the article should have before I move on to the next one of these featured lists, and the other is if we should include information on the number of buildings that are currently proposed or under construction.

I know from glancing at the page history, the latter has been contentious in this article, even though most of the other ones have it. To avoid running afoul of Crystal, at least at the NYC article which I'm most familiar with. Proposed structures are allowed if permits are filed, there is an ownership interest in the site, there is an associated professional design team, and multiple reliable independent sources have reported on it. That standard seems to work pretty well most of the time, although there are some exceptions, 2 World Trade Center has languished for more than a decade though I still personally think it will eventually be built, and the list also includes 15 Penn Plaza which in my personal assessment is a pie-in-the-sky proposal. However, I don't know if this would work for Atlanta since I'm less familiar with the local dynamics.

I do not think this should have separate sections for under construction or proposed, because those sections would have few to no entries, and we would need to repeatedly add and remove the sections from the article, instead I was thinking of something along the lines of what is used in List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh to the lead.

I've identified three proposed structures that meat the criteria, so the proposed addition would be along the lines of Overall, as of January, 2020, there were no buildings over 400ft under construction and three proposed for construction in Atlanta. Seeing as this is a contentious issue I would prefer to discuss this first.

I do apologize in advance because I don't have much time right now, and so it may be week between replies. However, since this is non-urgent I don't think it's that big a deal when we resolve this. I also appreciate any other input you have to offer, and of course, feel free to ping anyone else you think would be interested, thank you.

𝒬𝔔 21:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, many of these lists of skyscrapers are full of crystal balling. I've found so many of these lists of "approved/planned" buildings that were all dead after the 2008 financial collapse which is a perfect example of why wikipedia does not do crystal balling. Nor did print encyclopedias, they both just report on what IS and not what may be, possibly, one day. I'm of the firm belief that we do not include potential buildings in a list of buildings wikipedia page as history has shown these to be unreliable. To include a building under construction, well ok, since it is actually something, but it has to meet the referential suggestions you made above. The issue here is that there is no rush, once the building is under construction (at the least) we can add it then. There is no reason to rush adding a potential building to a list of tallest buildings. Mattximus (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Thanks for your reply. You have a strong point. I think there are circumstances in which we can say something is highly likely to be built, but it is the sort of thing that is difficult to do well. And even if so executed, such sections will still inevitably attract drive by additions by people who are not quite so careful. Well it is clear to me that you feel rather strongly about this and admittedly I do not, so I see no need to explore this any deeper right now. Further, I don't believe all of our lists need to have the exact same format, for example some have additional information on never built buildings, others lack timelines and I don't see that as any kind of problem. I briefly thought about adding Overall, as of February, 2020, there were no buildings over 400ft under construction in Atlanta. However it seems kind of an awkward addition when the number is zero. Instead I'll just place a hidden note explaining that the reason the list lacks data on under-construction numbers is because there's nothing to provide information on. That way if you find yourself dealing with a WikiImp again who insists on tagging the article until an under-construction section is added you can just point to the hidden note and the consensus on this talk page. Feel free to ping me if you feel the article needs any other work, and are willing to wait a week or two for it to be done, or otherwise need technical help with something. Have a good one,

𝒬𝔔 23:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

"Tallest atlanta" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tallest atlanta. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 25#Tallest atlanta until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 16:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)