Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford

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 promoted 19:28, 22 March 2008.

List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford edit

Self nomination - I am nominating this list as it is clear and concise with full references. Similar to the featured lists of List of tallest buildings and structures in London and List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester (I was involved with the latter) and brings useful information with links to the notable buildings and statistics for the ones not notable enough for an article. Not as "sexy" as the lists for some of the global cities, but informative non-the-less. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Nice work so far. I've made a couple of minor citation placement edits, but have a couple of comments...
- Temperature difference, is Salford 8 degrees colder or warmer?
- "... the "major" ..." - why in quotations? Is this even necessary?
- "In contrast to the vast majority of Manchester's tallest buildings, Salford's high-rises were constructed in the 1960s and 70s as part of a regeneration project to alleviate chronic social deprivation and urban decay. Some of the early high-rise buildings have subsequently been demolished themselves, as they provided unsatisfactory accommodation for families and generated as many social problems as they were meant to alleviate. Others have become accommodation for students at the University of Salford." - all uncited.
- Should "Built" in the first table be "Completed"?
- Date ranges in Timeline section should be separated with the en dash.
Otherwise a very good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: OK, I think I've addressed some of these. I've removed the quotation marks around major, fixed the en dashes and tightened up the citation. I'm not sure if the temperature is warmer or colder - the source doesn't make it explicit. On one hand one would expect it to be warmer in central Salford because of urban warming, however, rainfall (here at least) is associated with a fall in temperature. On completed vs. built, I've used built per the existing FLs of Manchester and London. Do you think it is objectionable? -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to reply Hey Jza84, not objectionable at all, just curious - may be worth finding out though. As for the completed/built, it's probably worth re-iterating that the date in the tables is the completion date in the relevant section otherwise you'd have to remember that you said it in the lead. Let me know if you'd like another review... All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good work, great list. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - look at my comment down. MOJSKA 666 (msg)

Comment sorry to ask Mojska666 but what do you mean "much long incipit"? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also unsure what this means, or how it helps. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - On reflection, I think this means the lead is too long, which it isn't as it's compliant with WP:LEAD and inline with other FLs. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now it's OK, the long incipit now is a normal incipit (the its last part is in the headlines history or buildings). Bye, MOJSKA 666 (msg) 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I undid the edit; your sectioning meant that certain paragraphs lost context and meaning, and were also in breach of WP:LEAD. A "normal incipit" is permitted to be four paragraphs long, this is three. Please be mindful this is a list not an article. See also, List of tallest buildings and structures in London and List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, Mojska, but your comments are a little difficult to decipher. Please help us understand what it is you object to. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Majoska, your oppose is not based on any form of Wikipedia policy and seems to be based entirely on your own opinions. I hope the FLC closer will take note. _L^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 21:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd have to agree. Although I welcome feedback I think the changes desired here would breach the Manual of Style. Majoska seems to be quite new to the English Wiki however and don't want to bite (!) -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment(s) - Note to And-Rew and Jza84: my user-name isn't Majoska, it's Mojska! Are you blind ;-) For the article, 1) I don't like the timeline, here it's a mini-label, can we delete it? 2) manual of style, incipit... the readers don't read (all) the article if its text is all in an un-subdivised incipit. So, my oppose became a neutral. Don't talk, please, about this neutral, it's good because it isn't an oppose :-) MOJSKA 666 (msg) 19:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confession - This is a nicely done list, but my main reaction to the article is to ask "why should people be interested in a list of the tallest buildings in a city where the tallest building is only 88 m tall, and most of the tall buildings are ugly social housing"? The one element in the article that makes the list somewhat interesting is the item about the university professor who suggested that the multitude of high-rise blocks in Salford have caused an increase of drizzly weather in Manchester. Is that theory widely credited? Has it been published more widely than the two 2002 news articles cited? If yes, perhaps this info should be featured in the first paragraph, as a bit of a "hook". --Orlady (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and respect your first point. I agree the content is a little banal (and made this clear in the opening statement of the nomination), but I do think it's notable and informative. Certainly the list is better than existing articles, like List of tallest buildings in Glasgow (tallest at 90 m) and List of tallest buildings in Leeds (tallest at 110). Salford is set to have a 160 m building which I believe makes it even more notable. Of course we can only present the facts as they are, but I think the list is more telling of the state of the city than first appears. It also helps deferentiate the buildings that are not in neighbouring Manchester. -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... I'd like to see the lead revised to more effectively explain why tall buildings in Salford qualify as a notable topic. Clearly, Salford is becoming a concentrated area of tall buildings. The plan for a 160-m building is part of that story that needs to be highlighted better in the lead. Perhaps some of the detail could be trimmed from the lead. The following is an example of some text that is important but seems overly detailed for the article lead: "The City of Salford is a local government district of Greater Manchester, with the status of a city and metropolitan borough ... named after its largest settlement, Salford, where the city's largest buildings and structures lie, but covers a far larger area which includes the towns of Swinton, Walkden and Eccles". --Orlady (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the lead is strong as it is. It clearly describes the subject which is what a lead is supposed to do. What you describe as being overly detailed is valuable information as the subject is the City of Salford rather than Salford and that requires clarification for the reader. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 19:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think it's the list's fault that the city of Salford is... different, compared to those cities already featured in FLs. This list is still well written and presented, meets all the criteria, and is well referenced. Support. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Shouldn't the tallest building in the city at least have its own article? Surely it is notable enough to warrant its own article. Also, the entries for the Salford Cathedral in the Tallest structures and Timeline sections should be identical. One states that its use is a "church spire", the other a "church", and the entry titles are different. These should be standardized. -- Rai-me 04:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Meets all the criteria as far as I can tell. I don't mind that it is about a rather banal subject. I added in a bunched image fix but that was all I could see. Good work. Woody (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the column "Notes", links to references for the height and other statistics are found. Are they not better placed as references next to the height itself (88^[1][2]) instead? And I checked the source in the article for the height of the North Tower, and it was given 80 meter, not 88 meter. 80 meter is close to 262 feet. Because already the first number is wrong, I would advise to check all the other numbers also. -EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting this. It should've read "80" not "88" and I've fixed this. On your point on the reference column I'd have to disagree - this was actioned based on feedback for other simillar lists. Also, the reference is for building name, use and date, not just the height. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now that I try to visualize my reference solution, I think my solution looks even worse than the current situation :S. Just keep it this way :)--EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose per 1a. Only a few of the buildings have articles, and I'm not entirely sure that a list of buildings where the tallest building wouldn't make the Top 10 of the List of tallest buildings in Tulsa is a "topic of significant study". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this feedback. Are you proposing this list be deleted? It seems to meet 1a: "contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles". That the buildings are not tall by global standards, these are ranked on several external skyscraper sources, and have a regional notability. --Jza84 | Talk 02:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure it does that though. 1a3 is around to excuse things like timelines, lists of statistics, episodes, etc. In this case, if the buildings have notability, then they should have their own page. If you created pages for most of the taller buildings, then I would consider my concerns addressed, but otherwise, I don't think it meets all of the criteria. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't seriously compare the United States with the United Kingdom? Here our buildings are generally smaller because we are not obsessed with height and usually prefer style. Per your comments about 1a, Criteria 1(a)3..."contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles". Most of the buildings are simply residential apartment towers which have no notable features for an article. Obviously they can't be missed out from this list so they are added with no linked article but full statistical information. I do think the North Tower needs an article though. The topic is very significant especially if you look at the towers which are being built and will become some of the tallest in the UK. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 02:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comparing the United States and the UK. I'm comparing the buildings of Tulsa and Salford. Okay, a better example: why is a list of buildings where the tallest doesn't even make the List of tallest structures in the United Kingdom notable enough to be considered a "topic of significant study"?
If the buildings "have no notable features for an article" why can't they be mentioned in the article for Salford? If they are just residential buildings, why should they be mentioned at all? In fact, if Salford is part of Greater Manchester, why can't this list and the list of tallest buildings in Manchester be merged to create a list of tallest buildings in Greater Manchester? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing Tulsa (United States) and Salford (United Kingdom) our buildings are smaller, that is just a fact. The list of tallest structures in the UK is dominated by television masts and List of tallest buildings in Glasgow and List of tallest buildings in Leeds do not feature on that list either. They have no notable features because many of them are social housing towers and they can't just be missed off the list because of that. Not all of them are residential. It would be too unusual to have a list of tallest buildings in Greater Manchester because there are no other lists which are based on counties, only on cities. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 02:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester and Salford enjoy the distinction of having City status in the United Kingdom. Greater Manchester's 8 other boroughs do not, and in that capacity do not seem to have their buildings reported on. Simillarly, your talking about the highest density housing estate in Europe, and a major factor in the recent history of the locality ([1]). Salford's high rise buildings are some of the largest and most dense in the UK, higher than Leeds or Glasgow. --Jza84 | Talk 02:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Glasgow or the Leeds lists are FLCs. If they are nominated, then they can be debated over. I still don't see why a list of residential buildings under 100 m tall in a mid sized city could be considered a topic of significant interest. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, this doesn't seem to be constructive feedback, and seems to be subjective. At what point are buildings of worth? Indeed, I could argue that a list of buildings under 101 m tall in a mid-to-large city isn't notable. The content is defined by statutory boundaries, reported on in third party sources and include a number of factoids related to the locality. The list is not of residential buildings; it includes entries such as the neo-gothic Salford Cathedral (the centre of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Salford), British Broadcasting Company HQ mediacity:uk, architectually acclaimed The Lowry, the Canopus Towers which will be just shy of the tallest residential building in Europe. We could omit the ugly, but most densely inhabited housing estate in Europe to airbrush the list, but that wouldn't be very neutral. --Jza84 | Talk 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject matter may well be uninteresting to some, even banal, but that is of no consequence. No list with 70+ references would last long at WP:MfD, so this list has a place here on Wikipedia. The question is whether the list meets the featured list criteria. To my mind it is a good example of Criteria 1(a)3..."contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles". WP:GM is certainly capable of creating twenty or thirty sub-stubs (that's not a threat or a suggestion), but I think it's a bad idea. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A great list I was involved in and it meets all criteria set for featured lists. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 04:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This list is very good about my home. Very thorough and looks nice. SalfordLad2008 (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck because this FLC was the editors first edit. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unstruck because you do not have the right to start putting lines in peoples edits when you do not like them. I used to edit on my IP so this is not my first edit so please leave me alone. SalfordLad2008 (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)****I hate to break it to you, but I do a lot of the FLC closures around here. We don't count first edits or IP edits because of WP:SOCK concerns. I'm not saying that is what is going on, but we have to be consistant. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - - I hope you do not close this list because you must have a grudge against my city to do a strong oppose to this lovely list. And stop wp:bite biting me and being horrible because I wanted to help but now you are calling me a liar. SalfordLad2008 (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Checkuser evidence has confirmed SalfordLad2008 as a sockpuppet of Joshii. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Confirmed - I was asked to run a check as I'd seen strong evidence of sock-puppetry and votestacking on here - Alison ^❤ 06:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I can only apologise for him as a member of WP:GM. --Jza84 | Talk 13:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - I am not really sure about this being a "topic of significant study", but I do have three other concerns. I find it hard to believe that even the tallest building in this city is not notable enough to have its own article. An article for the North Tower needs to be created. Also, the entries for the "Salford Cathedral spire" in the tallest structures section and the "Salford Cathedral" in the timeline section should be standardized (keep or remove "spire", but make it consistent for both entries). Also, it is important to note that there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Question regarding criteria 1a1 and 1a3 to determine if lists that include both linked articles and members which are not sufficiently notable to have their own articles (such as this one), meet FL criteria. Cheers, Rai-me 01:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've fixed the "spire" issue. Do you really think the North Tower needs to be created as means towards achieving FL? This doesn't seem to be part of the criteria. As stated by Mr Stephen, someone is more than capable of creating a stub to satisfy reviewers but that the tallest building in Salford happens to be fairly non-descript means that it seems to be consensus (amongst WP:GM) that it does not really warrent an article. My concern is that if people (users that seem to be non-British) feel the content of the list is not "significant" enough to acheive FL, ought we just delete this and not bother putting in all that work? What tier of success should a user be looking towards acheiving? Is there anything wrong with the formatting? I'm concerned that because the images show buildings in the unfashionable Brutalist style, users are turned off from the content. --Jza84 | Talk 01:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do think an article for the North Tower needs to be created. Criterion 1a3 states ...where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles, but the North Tower, as the tallest building in the city, is sufficiently notable. List of tallest buildings in Tulsa, for example, has 7 buildings shorter than the North Tower that are each sufficiently notable to have their own articles; see Liberty Towers. And the North Tower, as the city's tallest building, is just as, if not more notable than those buildings. As I stated before, I am unsure about this list's significance, so I wouldn't oppose based on that alone; however, I don't think it has to do with the fact that the buildings are brutalist-styled, but moreso that the entries on this list are so much less notable than those of List of tallest buildings in Tulsa, which itself was once tagged for notability issues (grant it, the tag was quickly removed). I certainly think that this list shouldn't be deleted, but I think "significant topic of study" means more than simply "sufficiently notable enough to have a Wikipedia article in the first place". Again, though, I am undecided on this issue, and will not oppose based on this list being "insignificant". My main concern is the discussion going on at WP:WIAFL; the outcome of which will determine whether this list, and many other tallest building lists and FLs, even meet the criteria, as they seem to "straddle" criteria 1a1 and 1a3, which in some editors' eyes is unacceptable. Until then, this FLC and that of List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque above should be neither passed nor failed. Cheers, Rai-me 02:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am prepared to believe that this is a "set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles," but the article lead fails to establish that notability. The latter portions of the intro do contain tidbits of information related to notability, but to find those tidbits the reader must wade through details such as "The City of Salford is a local government district of Greater Manchester, with the status of a city and metropolitan borough" and "It is named after its largest settlement, Salford, where the city's largest buildings and structures lie, but covers a far larger area which includes the towns of Swinton, Walkden and Eccles." --Orlady (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please leave this with me and I'll rejig the lead per your concerns. The lead was based loosely on that of the List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester page, but doesn't seem to work effectively from this feedback. --Jza84 | Talk 03:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, this is true, the lead does seem to stray off-topic. Infomation not directly relating to the city's buildings needs to be removed. The discussion at WP:WIAFL is relating to whether a list can use the "set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles" criterion, and yet still have some members that have their own articles (as this one does - Peel House, Salford Cathedral, The Lowry, and Canopus Towers), since not all members are "not sufficiently notable to have their own articles". All input at that discussion would be appreciated, as that talk page does not seem to get a whole lot of traffic. Cheers, Rai-me 03:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this address your concerns at all? Any other feedback on the lead would be appreciated. --Jza84 | Talk 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That helped a lot. Additionally, I switched the order of two paragraphs. I think the intro needs a little more cleanup, but (for me) the notability issue is fixed. --Orlady (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on reflection, the swapping of paragraphs seems to work here. If you (or anybody else) have any other pointers of improving the article, feel free to share. I'm passionate to make this list great and will take on board any feedback.... I may even create a North Tower article (<- that's a redirect to an article on the World Trade Center). --Jza84 | Talk 13:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the lead is now much better. My main remaining concern is that a North Tower (Salford) needs to be created. And, of course, the discussion at WP:WIAFL will hopefully decide whether or not a list like this one with some links and some non-links still meets the crieria. Cheers, Rai-me 21:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is a well-crafted list, and the article lead now clearly communicates why this collection of buildings is notable. I do not share Raime's view about the need for an article about the North Tower because I don't see any notability in that building, as pictured in the article and described in this source. AFAICT, that is the only "work" devoted to this building, and it is neither architecturally nor historically interesting. Being 5 m taller than the next tallest building in Salford is not much of a claim to fame. --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't disagree more. Being the tallest structure in a city for over 40 years is certainly a claim to fame. Its city rank alone makes this building significant. -- Rai-me 17:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you feel strongly that this building is notable, perhaps you are the best person to draft an article about it. Either you will succeed at writing a worthwhile article, or you will conclude that the building is not individually notable. I see the building as non-notable: The building is inherently nondescript; its use (as a chain hotel) is nondescript; it's just a little bit taller and a little bit older than several other buildings in the article; and I have yet to see any independent works written about it. --Orlady (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm pleased to say that I have been proven wrong. Mr Stephen has written a nice article about North Tower (Salford). Wow! --Orlady (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it's actually a not bad little article. Anyway, consider this article promoted. I'll do the actual promotion in about an hour. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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