Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Miami

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

List of tallest buildings in Miami edit

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Nomination. This list is based on List of tallest buildings in Boston and List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia, which are both recently listed FLs. It does have two fair use images (Image:One Bayfront Plaza.jpg and Image:Empire World Towers.jpg), but the images are relevant in their respective "Approved" and "Proposed" sections (no free images of any approved or proposed buildings in Miami exist), and both have thorough fair use rationales. I believe the list to be comprehensive, stable, well-organized and well-referenced. Any comments brought up here will be addressed. Raime 04:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have a problem with the images in the "Tallest buildings" section being in a single column on the right hand side, I see to be scrolling past acres of whitespace. This version [1] looked alright to me. Kappa 13:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know about that problem. The section and the images appear fine to me. Does your browser have a similar issue with List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia? The edit you mentioned above looked very strange on my browser, as it left huge amounts of white space on each side, and completely cramped the text. It was also inconsistent with the 4 other "tallest buildings" FLs. Raime 13:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well OK, no-one else seems to dislike it. Kappa 13:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll support if you put the "years tallest" column first or second in the timeline. Kappa 23:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It has been a standard to put "Years as tallest" in 5th position on the table, as this is how other tallest building lists have passed previously. If it was moved to before "Height" or "Floors", it would be very inconsistent with all other ranking lists in the article; "Year", or in this case, "Years as tallest", has been consistently placed after the floor count. However, if you really think it is necessary, I will move it. Rai-me 00:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The other lists in the article are sorted by height, so having height in one of the first columns and year towards the end makes sense for them. Kappa 08:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              •   Done - You're right. Since the list is measuring by timeline, the years should go first. I've moved the column to 3rd, after the street address. Do you have any other concerns? Rai-me 02:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Um well I'd still prefer first or second but you can certainly have my support. Kappa 03:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Thank you very much for your support. I was thinking about making it 2nd, but opted for 3rd, since the street address is sometimes used as a building's name, and the building's name should probably be listed first above all else. Rai-me 03:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Why don't the other tables have addresses? Kappa 12:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Becuase it is not really important, and many new buildings use their addresses for the names anyways. Addresses are usually good additional information for historically significant structures/landmarks such as the Freedom Tower and the Dade County Courthouse, but for newer structures, not necessarily. Addresses for newer, less prominent buildings are sometimes not even directly stated by the developer. Rai-me 13:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comments by Maxim(talk)' Great job, Raime. I couldn't find anything missing, to tell the truth, until I plugged in some JavaScript. Here is what it's helped me find (I saw the suggestions, and I manually rechecked them, so they're all applicable):
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 122 meters, use 122 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 122&nbsp;meters.
  • That's about all, metric/imperial tweaks of style. Use User:AndyZ/peerreviewer, and it should highlight these minor changes. It's nothing pressing, and it's superficial, to tell the through. I more or less support now, and I just want to see these minor MOSNUM changes. Maxim(talk) 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Done - Thank you very much for the review. I think I've made all necessary changes; &nbsp; is now used throughout and I've changed "meters" to "m" and "ft" to "feet" where appropriate. Do you have any other concerns? Rai-me 02:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support I was being excruciatingly picky over the MOSNUM fixes, and that's why I didn't oppose. Amazing list. Great work, Raime. Maxim(talk) 12:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! Rai-me 15:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Looks great as the other similar FLs. I have two concerns, though. First, I believe the refs(inline citations) should be in numerical order. Second, the external link doesn't show the diagram immediately, I have to refresh my page in order to see it. I don't know whether it's my computer's problem or not, but I'd recommend you to write a note similar to "refreshing the page may be required", anyway. It looked like a dead link before I refreshed the page.--Crzycheetah 03:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your review. I have just added the "(refreshing the page may be required)" note, as my computer had similar issues with the link, so it must be a problem with the entire link. As for putting the refs in order, do you think that is really necessary? All entries are currently laid out using the "Emporis, SkyscraperPage", and, if applicable, "Structurae" ref format, and are all ordered in this way. Putting them in numerical order would mess up this order. However, I will change it if you deem it necessary. Thanks, Rai-me 21:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not sure about the order. I just know that most(experienced) of the reviewers at WP:FAC want inline citations to be in numerical order. That's why I just mentioned it.--Crzycheetah 21:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •   Done - Okay, all individual entry references are now in alphabetical order. The FAC argument was a strong one. Do you have any other concerns? Rai-me 20:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I just noticed one more thing. The refs #6, 7, and 8 have notes and give "SkyscraperPage.com" as a source to those notes. My concern is that it doesn't give the specific webpage from where that note was taken. I don't want to browse through every page in SkyscraperPage.com to find those numbers.--Crzycheetah 00:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            •   Done. I have removed Source of information: SkyscraperPage.com from the refs. I took the information from the diagrams of the city, but unfortunately there is no way to provide direct links to those specific diagrams. Therefore, no specific page can be given. The information can simply be left as footnotes. Rai-me 00:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hmm..I think it's better to have something rather than nothing. Havihng just SkyscraperPage.com as a source is better than leaving all of the statistical data unsourced. Where have you seen those diagrams? They had to be in some page, right? Maybe, you could provide the general diagrams page?--Crzycheetah 01:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Okay, I've reverted the edit, at least for now. The only way I know how to access the diagrams is to go to this page and specify a search. To find the information referenced, you would have to type in "Miami", change conversion to feet, set a height limit of 500 ft, select "Official height", select "highrise", select "Built" and/or "Construction" and/or "Proposed". Once this is accomplished, the site will bring you to a URL that reads "[2]"; it is not a specific page, and referencing it will only bring a reader back to the original diagram search page. This occurs because SkyscraperPage treats it as a personally selected detailed diagram, not a specific diagram, which would be found here; a diagram that is not complete, as it only depicts buildings that have images, and is therefore inadequate for referencing and fit only for an external link). Rai-me 01:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you search for a diagrarm there, it gives you a link to a specific page, it's called "Diagram URL". It's located below the "Displaying 1 to 25 of xxx structures" statement.--Crzycheetah 02:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you. I've never noticed that before. I'll add this URL to the references right now. Rai-me 02:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done - All of the city statistic refs now reference their respective specific diagrams. Rai-me 10:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Miami&oldid=1143873708"