There is much debate over which buildings was the tallest in Chicago from 1930 to the mid 60s. If you look at [[One North LaSalle]] and its talk page, [[Pittsfield Building]], [[Chicago Board of Trade Building]] and a few others referenced at [[One North LaSalle]]. As our resident expert on tall buildings, you might be able clarify any problematic contributions I have made to the project trying to clear up this concern with my minimal knowledge of the subject.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:LOTD]]) </small> 22:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There is much debate over which buildings was the tallest in Chicago from 1930 to the mid 60s. If you look at [[One North LaSalle]] and its talk page, [[Pittsfield Building]], [[Chicago Board of Trade Building]] and a few others referenced at [[One North LaSalle]]. As our resident expert on tall buildings, you might be able clarify any problematic contributions I have made to the project trying to clear up this concern with my minimal knowledge of the subject.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:LOTD]]) </small> 22:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
==Thank you==
For fixing any mistake I made to that template. I am trying a new area of interest. --[[Special:Contributions/24.250.59.250|24.250.59.250]] ([[User talk:24.250.59.250|talk]]) 20:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:34, 3 February 2008
Hello! Welcome to my talk page. If you would like to leave me a message, please click on this link. When posting comments, please try to be civil. If you leave me a message, I will respond on your talk page unless otherwise stated. If I leave you a message, please try and respond here. Thank you! Rai-me
Articles related to architecture over the past two weeks are listed automatically by AlexNewArtBot.
This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
Reviewer of the Month
Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GAReview Template
Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer.
To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article.
GA Sweeps
After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details.
At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep.
Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA.
Did You Know,...
... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000?
... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"?
... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed?
... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star?
From the Editors
Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA.
OhanaUnited
Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers!
Raime, I am sorry. But I am going to be selfish and rude in this message. On 22 December I left you a message, here on your talk page. You have not responded yet. I do not know if you never noticed it, forgot about it, or just did not want to respond. It has been two weeks, and I am interested to know what your response is. All I would like is a reply; even a two word answer would be satisfactory. Sorry for being so rude. Thank you for your time and for understanding. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 07:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for creating the Dubai proposal. I am just interested to know how long it usually takes for 5 to 10 people to add their names. Should I leave a message on some users' talk pages that I feel might be interested in a WikiProject Dubai? And sorry again for my rude message. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 18:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those pointers. I will try to remember them. And yes, I do think it is a good idea to create a user sub-page for the WikiProject Dubai. Just let me know if there is anyting I can do to help. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My first picture is up at Image:2008-01-05 Sheraton New Orleans.JPG. I will post others as I can recognize the buildings and have time. A few more should be added today. I apologize, but your list finished 7th with me personally at WP:LOTD. I was wondering about city tallest building lists. It seems almost every article has at least one picture. Has there been any discussion about including a picture in the table for each building. Have you considered the triple image suggestion for the right side if not because that would also accomodate a picture for almost every building.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posted with VerruckteDan. You may want to see them (the last one is a crop for a redlink):
In the last month, you have created a new WP:FL. You are a veteran and have produced others in the past. Congratulations! I also see you have nominated an LOTDC this month. This is your official reminder that your votes are needed. Please participate in the voting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you might have noticed, I got a bit tired of creating new building lists, especially after six long lists in China. So I decided to do something else, Hydro-Québec's electricity transmission system, with hopes of bringing that article to FA-status. However, I think the article needs several more pictures of the power transmission lines and I decided to ask you since you live in the Northeast United States close to Quebec. Here are the specific transmission lines: New York Power Authority's AC (alternating current) 765 kV line in northern New York State near Marcy, the +/- 450 kV Quebec - New England HVDC (high-voltage direct current) Transmission line near Ayer, Massachusetts (north of Boston) and/or near Monroe, New Hampshire, and Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie's AC 735 kV power lines around Montreal, Quebec City, and the South Shore region of Québec. Do you think you can take pictures of these lines? Cheers. Trance addict08:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it would also be nice if you or you know somebody that has pictures of damaged power lines (in Québec and/or New England} from the 1998 Ice Storm which occurred 10 years ago. Cheers. Trance addict10:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Dubai
Wikipedia sure could use a project like this, I took a look at many of the Dubai articles and they were appalling. A significant number of articles has one (or more) of the following problem(s): POV, unencyclopedic content, un-wikified material, unreferenced, unchecked vandalism, orphan, out of date, and spam / advertising. Just so you know.
Building lists
I think we should stop creating new building lists in the US. Although I IDed more cities for list creation in the past, I have now decided many of those cities in the box don't deserve building lists, as they don't contain a lot of notable buildings and / or tall highrises as well. If we continue to create new building lists, I say pick a city somewhere else besides the US, like Panama City. The US is getting quite dry in terms of new building list(s) possibilities.
I think this image is better than the night time one. As for the new lists, let's hold off on them until we become 'un-bored' of creating lists. If we should work on the lists, let's focus on the existing ones. I think both the London and Paris lists need reformatting. The way they are right now looks pretty reader-unfriendly and both lists need more unreferences. Oh, and some advice for taking that photo of the +/- 450 kV Hydro-Quebec HVDC line near Ayer, I suspect the Sandy Pond terminal (substation) is a sensitive area, that is, it is an area where public photography is prohibited. This is because the HVDC terminal is blurred out on Google Earth images. And if you don't know what a +/- 450 kV HVDC line looks like, here (the line that carries only two conductors, not three, as with the AC 230 kV power lines).
Directions.....
I think to get to Ayer (directly from Providence), take I-95 north to I-495 and take go west-northwest on I-495 (Exit 6B on Microsoft Virtual Earth or clockwise, as I-495 forms an arc facing east). Go on I-495 until you reach Littleton Common (near Ayer). Then take the exit (Exit 31 on Microsoft Virtual Earth) there and get onto State Route 119. On State Route 119, head northwest (turn right, not left, don't go into Littleton Common). Heading northwest, past the Sandy Point Road and Forge Village Road junction, you will encounter the HVDC line at the junction of Gay Road and Prescott Street. Get off State Route 119 there (turn right) and go onto Gay Road. Cheers. Trance addict23:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dubai building article 'spam'
I agree as well; I think there are too many stub-articles about individual buildings / projects in Dubai, which made tagging a bit more prolonged. For the time being, I think we should consolidate all the information contained in those stubs into the building complex article. This here is example article about a complex in Hong Kong containing five buildings. I think, for Dubai, the building complex article should not have sections labelled "XYZ Tower I, XYZ Tower II, etc. Instead, the article should describe the complex in general, not the individual buildings. The individual building articles should be changed into a redirect of the building complex article, not deleted. The same goes for the talk page, but just delete the tag. Right now, there are both building complex and individual building articles; this may explain why there is a delete-no delete war because of notability reasons. Cheers. Trance addict05:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would we wise to condense the articles into their respective complexes. But, like Hydrogen Iodide said, the article for the developments should only describe the development. You mentioned Jumeirah Lake Towers (JLT). All buildings in the complex are grouped into clusters of three. We could create one article for each cluster instead of a different article for each tower. That would decrease the number of articles for towers in JLT by about a third (if we have an article for each tower, but I do not think that is the case). Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinates
Do you think we should add coordinates to Dubai and skyscraper articles so that a link to that article appears on Google Earth? It could increase the number of people who view the article. Cheers. Trance addict04:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used Google Earth to locate some buildings in Dubai, Hong Kong, Oakland and SF. However, this task may be very hard / impossible to do if the article does not have a picture and / or states the location (or Emporis for the buildings). It may be best to consult a local Wikipedian in whatever region that you are trying to add coordinates to. Take a look at this discussion for more info. Cheers. Trance addict05:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE:Welcome!
Thank you for welcoming me into the family! Please do drop me a line anytime if you need any particular assistance from the other side of the planet. ;)--Huaiwei (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Dubai Tasks
Raime, what else needs to be done to set up the WikiProject Dubai? Since I have never helped to create a WikiProject like you have, I hope you can give me a few pointers. How long does this whole process take? What needs to be created? How do we decide on the importance scale, etc.? Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 01:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you. I will try to create some of the things you listed when I can find time (this will most likely be Friday). But I may or may not be able to make one or two things tonight. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 03:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "anything else on the project page?" I do not know much about WikiProjects. You co-founded WikiProject Architecture and WikiProject Skyscrapers, so you have more experience with these types of things than I do. What types of things usually come up during or shortly after the creation of a project that we may be able to address now?
When looking at the Project page, everything looks good. I agree with the creation of an Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. When you proposed the creation of WP:DUBAI I was very happy. I knew that the project would greatly improve many of the articles, and an ACID is just what is needed. I also think that a template page would be a good way to access the templates when we need them, instead of fishing throughout Category:WikiProject Dubai for them. Should I also create a stub template for WP:DUBAI, such as {{Engineering-stub}}, or is just {{WikiProject Dubai}} okay? And what about an "articles by quality" template such as Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Skyscraper articles by quality statistics?
Your organization for stubs sounds good to me. For the ACID, should we work on an article that is (I feel) of top importance but is only a stub? But before that, how will we choose the importance of articles? I have been thinking about that, and I seem to think that a lot of them are important. Isn't importance an opinion? So how will we organize that? And I may not be the person to choose importance because I might be a little biased. How is importance chosen at other WikiProjects? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 19:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How would we classify Dubai Creek, Bur Dubai, Deira, Dubai, and Al Shindagha on the importance scale. Dubai would not exist were it not for Dubai Creek. And at one time, Bur Dubai, Deira, and Al Shindagha were the only areas of Dubai. This is where the city began, hence extremely important for the city. They are also the articles I think deserve a lot of attention. How do they sound for the ACID? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
On Hold versus Failing an Article
This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article:
Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page.
On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page.
Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page.
So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be:
the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory).
minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes.
mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references.
a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags.
On the other hand, an article should be failed if it:
is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section).
contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose.
there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags.
has evidence of an active edit war in the article history.
has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places.
Did You Know...
... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days?
... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA?
... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)?
... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles?
... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles?
... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status?
From the Editors
Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Changing the "FL" rating to "FA" is okay with me. But I am a little confused with what you wrote on my talk page. Did you mean to say that we should change WP:SKY lists to FA, but keep WP:DUBAI as FL? Sorry, but your wording confused me.
On another topic: The current discussion about establishing a naming guideline for skyscraper articles made me think of The Index (skyscraper). Should I change the name to "The Index (Dubai)," or is it okay with its current name? Also, recently an editor moved Al Burj from the Proposed section to the Under construction section in List of tallest buildings in Dubai. Do you know when a building can be classified as "under construction?" A company arrived at the construction site for piling. Is this considered construction? And last, I disagree with the category you have for Template:User Dubai. I brought up my concerns on its talk page. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support your proposed changes to the article titles. It is better if everything is consistent instead of having a large spectrum of titles. But, should we wait for the outcome of the discussion about the naming guidelines? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 03:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
