Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Tallest building lists in countries
[edit]What about guidline for Tallest building lists in countries? I think it may be based on that guidline with some small differencies. Do you think that will be better edit that guidline, so it can cover both cities and countries or to create separate guidline for countries? --Jklamo (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Street Address
[edit]What is the reason to exclude the street address of buildings from these lists? It seems like a worthy use of use as it provides a geographic context to the each entry within the city. I haven't been able to find any discussions on this topic, so I'd like to open it to discussion and see what consensus is on the matter. VerruckteDan (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- For most lists, there simply isn't enough room to add an extra column; the columns would be effectively "crunched" even more than they already are - see this edit of the New Orleans list. It also gets repetitive, as most cities have several buildings that use their addresses for names. Cheers, Rai-me 23:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Proposed?
[edit]I really don't think these lists should include a section on "proposed" or even "approved" skyscrapers as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. So many of these projects never come to fruition and need to be constantly updated (which is not happening), it does not make sense to include them. Perhaps under construction would be acceptable as there is something to physically report on, but for an encyclopaedia, wild speculation does not fit. Mattximus (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Request for Comment on Tallest Buildings Lists
[edit]Looking to establish clear guidelines for notability of Tallest Building Lists. Zonafan39 (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you looking for guidelines to tell you what makes a notable "Tallest Building"? If so I suspect is depends on the city. New York City may have thousands of high rises that would not be noteworthy, but if they were found in say, Mobile, Alabama, would be very noteworthy.
Or are you looking for guidelines to promote consistency between Tallest Building Lists? What sections should be present, what should be included in the table... etc? I would be open to this discussion as there are a few suggestion I would like to propose. Mattximus (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Right now I'm looking for guidelines for consistency on what cities should have tallest buildings lists and which ones should not. There is a discussion about deleating the List of the tallest buildings in Champaign, Illinois here, and since there are no set guidelines on which cities should get a tallest building list, I would like to clearly establish them. Any suggestions are welcome. Here are a few of mine:
- City should have a population over 80,000
- There should be a minimum of 7 entries on the list
- For smaller cities, the height cutoff should be 115 feet (35m), as this is the low end of what Emporis defines as a high rise.
- Those are a few of my suggestions. Zonafan39 (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I think these criteria are pretty solid...after search for some definitions of high-rise building, I found that "The National Fire Protection Association defines “high-rise building” as a building greater than 75 feet (25 m) in height where the building height is measured from the lowest level of fire department vehicle access to the floor of the highest occupiable story" [1] Cubbie15fan 14:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Where do the numbers come from (80,000, 7, and 35m)? The fire protection is an American source, is there a more internationally accepted cut off? Mattximus (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- The smallest cities on Template:US tallest buildings lists have 80,000 people, I think 7 entries are sufficient for a list, and 35m is the lower limit of Emporis' definition of a high rise building. Those are just basic guidelines that I'm putting out there. I'm willing to hear your ideas. Zonafan39 (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- These numbers seem very small. Maybe it's because I'm a New Yorker, but I can't bring myself to care about cities smaller than a million people. And, yes, I realize that I'm a walking stereotype and quite possibly an asshole on top of it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well population of 80,000 is completely arbitrary so I say ignore that number altogether. And the number of entries is also arbitrary, but I think the key idea is that the entries have links to actual wiki pages. If there is 7 entries, but none link anywhere, it's just an index of buildings, which wikipedia is not. But if there are 5 and each building is notable (by having their own non-stub wiki page), then I think it's worthwhile. Still pondering a less qualitative definition. Mattximus (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- After doing a little research, I think maybe cities should be judged on a case by case basis and it seems like firm standards cannot be established. For example: Myrtle Beach has a significant number of high rises, none of which are notable (the Margate Tower might be an exception- it is the 3rd tallest building in South Carolina), but what I think makes Myrtle Beach worthy of having a list is that it has less then 30,000 people but has a skyline that could rival cities ten times its size. Zonafan39 (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- After giving it more thought, it looks like there is not a definitive quantitative answer, and I agree it should be a case by case basis. I think cities should have building lists only when several buildings are notable (that is to say, have their own non-stub wikipage). If there are too few, then the list format doesn't really suit it, and it should probably just be in the main city page. Mattximus (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- There are a couple of strange ideas in there. Firstly, there's no requirement in any other list that the items themselves are individually notable. Secondly, "having their own non-stub wikipage" is not what constitutes notability. Certainly the size of the list is worth considering (a list of three or four buildings is not worth having as an article in its own right) but I don't think there should be any requirement that items on the list are themselves notable. WaggersTALK 07:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with your statement. Consider a city with 27 anonymous apartment high rises, that are all identical and concrete (this is not uncommon throughout the world). Now consider a city with 5 historically significant skyscrapers each with their own story. Having a list for the first is simply an index of buildings (which wikipedia is not), the second is an embedded, connected list, that is truly encyclopaedic. Can you give an example of a featured list, where the contents themselves are not notable? Mattximus (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- There are a couple of strange ideas in there. Firstly, there's no requirement in any other list that the items themselves are individually notable. Secondly, "having their own non-stub wikipage" is not what constitutes notability. Certainly the size of the list is worth considering (a list of three or four buildings is not worth having as an article in its own right) but I don't think there should be any requirement that items on the list are themselves notable. WaggersTALK 07:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- After giving it more thought, it looks like there is not a definitive quantitative answer, and I agree it should be a case by case basis. I think cities should have building lists only when several buildings are notable (that is to say, have their own non-stub wikipage). If there are too few, then the list format doesn't really suit it, and it should probably just be in the main city page. Mattximus (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- After doing a little research, I think maybe cities should be judged on a case by case basis and it seems like firm standards cannot be established. For example: Myrtle Beach has a significant number of high rises, none of which are notable (the Margate Tower might be an exception- it is the 3rd tallest building in South Carolina), but what I think makes Myrtle Beach worthy of having a list is that it has less then 30,000 people but has a skyline that could rival cities ten times its size. Zonafan39 (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well population of 80,000 is completely arbitrary so I say ignore that number altogether. And the number of entries is also arbitrary, but I think the key idea is that the entries have links to actual wiki pages. If there is 7 entries, but none link anywhere, it's just an index of buildings, which wikipedia is not. But if there are 5 and each building is notable (by having their own non-stub wiki page), then I think it's worthwhile. Still pondering a less qualitative definition. Mattximus (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- These numbers seem very small. Maybe it's because I'm a New Yorker, but I can't bring myself to care about cities smaller than a million people. And, yes, I realize that I'm a walking stereotype and quite possibly an asshole on top of it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Referencing
[edit]I think we should have a consensus of what references to use as sources. Most lists use Emporis, and SkyscraperPage or even SkyscraperCity. However the Skyscraper Center is now the database for the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH). This would seem to me to be the most verifiable reference to use. the List of tallest buildings in Miami for example, has been recently updated with both CTBUH[2] and Emporis cited as sources. And although we are having a bit of a contentious debate on the talk page there now about accuracy of sources, currently I would argue that there are no better ones to use. 1305cj (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)