Talk:List of tallest buildings in Europe: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:30, 29 June 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of tallest buildings in Europe article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 100 days

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Architecture List‑class Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Europe List‑class High‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skyscrapers List‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

When is a building in a city?

If one places footnotes regarding buildings not in the city of Paris then surely the same applies to building not in the city of London - the Shard and Strata are in Southwark and the docklands building are in Tower Hamlets. ~~Davroche~~

Usce tower, Belgrade

I removed this building from the list because it has only 25 storeys and, as such, can't logically be 141m tall. With the antenna maybe, but then we would have to put Commerzbank in Frankfurt to n.1. (300m with the antenna) ~~Vjeko~~

Canary Wharf

There's a picture of The City yet not the considerably higher Canary Wharf...?

Adding a picture /remove all pictures except for moscow

The following discussion is an archived debate of new proposed below. Please do not modify it.

The result was detained - the use few sock-puppets by Mtrerfowp in poll, user:Mtrerfowp and few sock-puppets has been blocked indefinitely.

I propose to add this picture to the lead. Yes, we have all tall European buildings listed in alphabetical order, but the article is called List of tallest, not just tall buildings in Europe. This picture has 4 out of 5 tallest buildings in it, including The tallest, so does it not fit the lead?FeelSunny (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support everyone can see european skycrapers and metropoles are joke except for moscow, get over it westerners --Crossswords (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for pointing that out--Doraslam4809 (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Previously was better. Also, suspicion about the use of sock puppets. User:Doraslam4809, your account exist on Wikipedia one day (Created on 24 April 2014 at 15:14) and you decide (for itself) to remove all pictures (except Moscow)? It is not acceptable! Also, Russian user gave this proposal (remove all pictures except Moscow - capital of Russia), Russian support it, it is very creative. This is not kindergarten. No, without favoring one city. The current use of graphics (many cities in Europe) functioned for years. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support As evident above--Mtrerfowp (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done clearly no consensus version--Papssews23 (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

next new users, please stop using sock-puppets! If you continue to using sock-puppets, you will be blocked (your IP and all your accounts) from editing Wikipedia. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done stop please stop rm consensus version If you continue rm consensus version you will be blocked--Mtrerfowp (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. This is not consensus, this is consensus between one user (you and your sock puppets). If you still waged edit-war, I will inform administrators-checkusers (see Wikipedia:Checkuser). Your IP and your all sockpuppets will be blocked, you will not be able to create a new account and in any way to edit Wikipedia. If you waged edit-war and votes with the sock-puppets, you have to be blocked at 100% because this is one of the biggest offences in Wikipedia. If you think that using puppets to vote without consequences is you're wrong. Do not have any chance, I will fight with sock-puppets to the end. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 08:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done :stop please stop rm consensus version--Mtrerfowp (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert again, I will inform administrators. And again: please stop use sock-puppets, you and sockpuppets no have the dual voice. Besides, please wait for vote by other users, ie. from outside Russia. Wikipedia is multinational project, there can be no such thing: two Russians and three sock-puppets by these Russians = five votes for very large picture of Russian Moscow in intro of article. You're dreaming. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mtrerfowp (talk) not from Russia from outside Russia Crossswords (talk) from Russia--Crossswords (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course ;) Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 07:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove any very large picture of Russian Moscow in intro of article on Wikipedia because of your personal political beliefs.--Mtrerfowp (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not political beliefs. Again: please stop use sock-puppets, you and sockpuppets no have the dual voice. Besides, please wait for vote by other users, ie. from outside Russia. Wikipedia is multinational project. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 07:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done according to three rules of Wikipedia:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a democracy! Quotation: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting". No matter how much users (and sock-puppets) give voice, to new controversial changes - you must have to convince other users (only arguments).
Also according to Wikipedia:CYCLE (new change -> if exist revert/oppose = only discussion, no reverts, in any case, you can not push a new version by means of reverts (also see four rule: Wikipedia:Edit warring).
Also do not forget about Wikipedia:STATUSQUO, quotation: "If you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up".

Your new changes are bad because (five points):

favoring Moscow (very big picture of Moscow in the top)
remove all other pictures of other cities from article
presenting Amsterdam as main finance center of Europe (totally nonsense)
remove Istanbul, Milan, Naples, Valencia (that existed in a sentence in article "In recent years, however, skyscraper construction has spread to many other cities, including.... ". This is confirmed, in this cities in recent years built many skyscrapers)
remove some skyscrapers from the list

We wait for your arguments for your changes, you must prove that your change is good and why (please explain exactly five above points), otherwise you will not be able to enter his controversial changes to the article. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 07:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

New change by new user and IP's

8 April 2014, new user:Mafintieyu made very controversial change [1], I reverted it. Later also new user:Afmatpesr reverted it, later again also IP 41.108... restored this controversial change. I reverted it and explained exactly why edition has been reverted: "controversial change - Amsterdam is not major financial centres of Europe, why removed Warsaw and Istanbul? This two cities has very many skyscrapers". Mafintieyu again restore this controversial change. First, I ask:

Amsterdam is not major financial centres of Europe, why you make lies?
why removed Warsaw and Istanbul? This two cities has very many skyscrapers.

Waiting for your thorough explanation. PS. I am considering the option to report you to the administrator because 're using sockpuppets to reverts. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

been reverted by other user IP/new user is not Sock puppetry however Amsterdam is A major financial centres of Europe and why you make lies? Warsaw is not major financial centres of Europe, why you make lies?--Mafintieyu (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and what This two cities has very many skyscrapers why you make lies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mafintieyu (talk • contribs) 15:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please source for your nonsense "Amsterdam A major financial centres of Europe" and is assigned to the same category as Frankfurt, London, Moscow or Paris. Your new change is original research. You break the rule of Wikipedia:No original research.
Warsaw was entered in the second sentence, not about financial centres of Europe but about skyscrapers [2]. Warsaw has ~20 skyscrapers above 100 metres, above 40 skyscrapers above 70 metres (including 22 skyscrapers built after 2000). The entry of Warsaw is fully correct to sentence of " In recent years, however, skyscraper construction has spread to many other cities, including Barcelona, Brussels (...) Warsaw and others." Istanbul is better, 38 Istanbul skyscrapers has above 150 metres. Please stop trolling.
You are shameless, you (Mafintieyu) existed on Wikipedia from yesterday (Created on 8 April 2014 at 14:29), you have made few editions including edit-war, you broke a few rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (you favor Amsterdam), Wikipedia:Verifiability (do not give sources to own changes) and Wikipedia:No personal attacks (your descriptions of changes). It seems that your account was created for disruptive edits. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you (Mafintieyu) existed on Wikipedia from 2008 but account Created on 8 April--Mafintieyu (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and why don't you source for your trivial nonsense claimed!! maybe ok for Warsaw in the second sentence btW Istanbul is not in Europe!!--Mafintieyu (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2/3 of Istanbul lies in Europe, commercial (skycrapers) and historical center lies in Europe, east suburbs lies in Asia. Istanbul is mainly European city. Also see read article. Example source: WCTR Society; Unʼyu Seisaku Kenkyū Kikō (2004). Urban Transport and the Environment: An International Perspective. Amsterdam: Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-08-044512-0 page 281. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So,

Warsaw and Istanbul - explained the matter
Amsterdam - explained the matter, sentence of "Amsterdam A major financial centres of Europe" break the rule of Wikipedia:No original research (you say so because you think), Wikipedia:Verifiability (no sources) and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (you favor Amsterdam).
Also you break the rule of Wikipedia:CYCLE (new edit, revert by other user = discuss cycle before new edit or edit-war).

You want to make a new edition, other user questioned its validity (reason: incorrect data, breaking the rules of Wikipedia and break Wikipedia:Status quo. You still have an argument to proving think your editing is good? So far - the lack of any arguments. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw is in the second sentence - explained the matter--Mafintieyu (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you lack of any sources sentence of "Istanbul major financial centres of Europe" break the rule of Wikipedia:Verifiability (no sources) and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (you favor Istanbul ) (no sources) for your trivial nonsense claimed!! Istanbul!!!!!!!! --Mafintieyu (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul is mainly muslim Asia city — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mafintieyu (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul lies in Europe (greater part) and Asia (smaller part), there are many sources for this, one I gave above. Secondly: religion does not matter; Kosovo, Albania etc are muslim countries, lie entirely in Europe, see also Islam in Europe. You have no right removed of Istanbul from the article without consensus, especially if there is an objections from another user. You introduce controversial amendments without sources and based on your personal feelings, create edit-war, break the status quo. The end. You do not have any arguments and sources. The discussion came to an end. Your change has been considered erroneous and will be revoked. Goodbye. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, someone had already retreated your controversial change yesterday. Ok. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

I sense a lot of sock puppet PV pushing on this page. One of who seems like Slimmilky51. The user has less than 15 edits, all to this page or undoing subtropical man's edits. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Slimmilky51 (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)nOt sock puppet --Slimmilky51 (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Then why are all your edits to this article and it's talk page only and you popped up after one sock disappeared? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clear sockpuppetry going on here..... ƬheStrike Σagle ^sorties 15:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, User:Slimmilky51 is next sockpuppet, administrators confirmed/detected many sockpuppets by this person (for example: User:Mafintieyu, User:Afmatpesr, User:Mtrerfowp...) - blocked indefinitely. Currently, the investigation continues because it is possible that sock-puppets by this person are over 100 (see and see)! And also, every day this person creating new accounts, possible that it will require the intervention of the Internet Service Provider of this person (cut off internet). Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Adding a picture to the lead - let's really discuss it this time

Firstly, a few words why this section was created. In February I proposed to add this picture to the right to the lead. This picture has 4 out of 5 tallest buildings in Europe in it, including the tallest. The discussion did not happen, for reasons you can see above - seems like only two users took part, with two different opinions. So, thinking that five months is enough time to give any objections to my poposal, I added the picture. However my edit has been swiftly reverted with the reasoning "was discussion in past. Start new discussion". So, starting a new discussion, and hope this toime it works.

So, I propose to add the image to the lead for the fololowing reasons: we have all tall European buildings listed in alphabetical order, but the article is called List of tallest, not just tall buildings in Europe. This picture has 4 out of 5 tallest buildings in it, including The tallest, and I strongly feel this fits in the lead. P.S. I absolutely do not propose to delete any other images - somehow the first discussion was sort of hijacked and people started discussing this, instead of adding a picture. FeelSunny (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - posting here to make sure my voice is clear and counted.FeelSunny (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support it too, but I am just an unregistered user so I guess it won't count. However, I'd like to add that there is a more up-to-date photo available on Wikimedia here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MIBC_12th_June_2014.jpg

@@ Line 123: / Line 123: @@
 So, I <b>propose</b> to add the image to the lead for the fololowing reasons: we have all tall European buildings listed in alphabetical order, but the article is called List of ''tallest'', not just ''tall'' buildings in Europe. This picture has ''4 out of 5 tallest'' buildings in it, including ''The tallest'', and I strongly feel this fits in the lead. P.S. I absolutely <b>do not propose</b> to delete any other images - somehow the first discussion was sort of hijacked and people started discussing this, instead of adding a picture. [[User:FeelSunny|FeelSunny]] ([[User talk:FeelSunny|talk]]) 06:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 *'''Support''' - posting here to make sure my voice is clear and counted.[[User:FeelSunny|FeelSunny]] ([[User talk:FeelSunny|talk]]) 06:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
+I support it too, but I am just an unregistered user so I guess it won't count. However, I'd like to add that there is a more up-to-date photo available on Wikimedia here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MIBC_12th_June_2014.jpg