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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of tallest buildings in Providence[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: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. All previous concerns addressed, and no new objections or concerns raised. Promote. Raime 13:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination. This is a well-organized, well-referenced list that meets criteria. There are six images in the article that fit well with the context. Out of these, one (Image:Onetenwaterfire.JPG) is a copyrighted image of a proposed building, of which there are no free images available. It has a thorough fair use rationale on its page. Any issues with this will be addressed. Overall the list is clear and informative, with a three-paragraph introduction, a free-image of the existing skyline, a list of the city's 15 tallest buildings, and an informative notes section. The list currently only has one table, but approved, proposed and under construction buildings could be broken into another table if it is deemed necessary.

The list meets Featured-list criteria:

  • The list is useful and informative.
  • The list is comprehensive, as it contains a list of the 15-tallest and most notable buildings in the city, as well as all tall proposed buildings.
  • The list is accurate, with reference links to Emporis, SkyscraperPage, and other notable sources.
  • The list is not at all controversial and is very stable.
  • The lead summarizes list scope, with the list's title in bold.
  • The list has 5 free-use images, and one fair-use image with a thorough and complete fair use rationale.

All possible issues brought up here will be addressed. Raime 07:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made it sortable and did some minor work; support. --Golbez 07:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a few unsourced statements such as the Westin comment. References also aren't in a standard format. Should use cite web template for all. Fixed. Thank you.--Loodog 12:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: All buildings have at least one, if not two, sources.
 Done: References now in standard format; cite web template is used for all Internet References.
I disagree. The list does not only consist of existing skyscrapers, it also includes proposed, approved, and under construction buildings. Images of existing buildings are obviosuly necessary to portray the content. However, there are no free images available for under construction/proposed/approved images, only the copyrighted images released by developers. Since these buildings are included in the list, however, I believe that one fair use image that greatly adds to the article and is used in fair use context is available for use in the article. At least one under construction, proposed, or approved building should be depicted, and yet there are no free images available for these structures. Nevertheless, if you think keeping the OneTen image is a serious problem, I will remove the image. Raime 23:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the list was about "proposed buildings", then there would be no problem. I disagree with your "at least one unserconstruction, proposed, or approved building should be depicted" statement. Why should it be depicted? Anyway, I would love to keep that image, it's a great image. I just don't think we have a right to have that image in this particular list. Any third opinion would be very welcome, preferably from a copyright expert.--Crzycheetah 00:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list is about existing and proposed buildings. Maybe should was a bad word choice, but it seems like one image of a proposed building would make sense to portray all content of the list. However, if we do not have a right to use the image, then you're right; it should definitely be removed. Other than the image, do you see any problems? Raime 00:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia:Non-free content, this image is fair game for fair use. If the images are going to be representative of the items in this list, we should have at least one image of a building not yet built. Whatever image that is, is irreplaceable since no one can take a picture of a building that does not exist yet. This image falls under "Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary." so I don't see a problem.--Loodog 01:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am glad that we have a right to use that. And no, I don't see any other problems, yet.--Crzycheetah 02:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why do you rank Turk's Head Building at 11 while emporis.com, your main reference, ranks it at 20? Maybe you need a better reference than that?--Crzycheetah 20:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main (or at least equal to Emporis) reference is probably SkyscraperPage, which ranks it (correctly) as 11th. The only problem is that SkyscraperPage cannot be accessed as a city compilation, only by individual building files. Therefore, it cannot used as an external link. Emporis is definitely wrong about their information for the Turk's Head Building; you can find it on other sources that the building is taller than that website states. However, as long as the Turk's Head Building entry does not use Emporis as a reference, and other buildings do, it is not really a problem. Emporis often has small details wrong about certain buildings, but for others it is correct. For those it is correct for, I see no reason why it should not be used as a reference. However, if you think it would help, I'll use SkyscraperPage as a reference for every building on the list, to go along with Emporis. Raime 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In these types of lists (one that has rankings), there's always a general reference that proves that the ranking is correct. It's missing here. I'd suggest to remove that emporis link from the external links section, since it only confuses readers.--Crzycheetah 22:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: Very good point. External link to Emporis is removed. And I've also made references to SkyscraperPage on most building entries on the list, to define it as the main reference over Emporis. Any other problems that you see? Raime 22:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, emporis is notoriously inaccurate.--Loodog 22:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found this link at SkyscraperPage, but it's still off. It ranks Omni Biltmore Hotel lower than Turk's Head Building.--Crzycheetah 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is not off. That link only ranks it lower because it excludes the Biltmore sign at the top of the building. However, signs such as these are often included in architectural heights, which is what this particular list ranks. If you look closely at the images on the diagram, you can see that the Biltmore sign is actually higher than the roof of the Turk's Head Building. Oh, and thanks for the link. I've been trying to use that diagram as an external link, but for some reason I cannot get it on my computer. But, since yours worked, I listed it under External links. Any more problems? Raime 22:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This explanation needs to be cited and included somewhere in the article. Otherwise, it would be the same deal as was with Emporis, I mean the confusion part.--Crzycheetah 06:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: Very good point, that would get quite confusing. I've added the following as a reference under the Biltmore's Notes entry: "The Biltmore Hotel became the tallest in the city in 1922 including the height of the prominent BILTMORE sign on the top of the building. Such signs are often included in architectural heights, which is what this particular list ranks. However, other sites, such as SkyscraperPage, do not include the sign in the total height of the building. Without the sign, the Biltmore stands at 205 feet (62.5 meters), making it the 12th-tallest in Providence rather than the 9th-tallest." Raime 06:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of the See also section because you already linked to it in the lead. Plus, fix the Woodward's book citations, preferably use {{cite book}}.--Crzycheetah 22:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneWoodward refs now standardized with cite book.--Loodog 00:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneSee also section removed. Raime 01:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose
    • I absolutely oppose mixing the listings for existing and proposed/incomplete buildings. If there's one thing the Paris list has right, it's that.
      •  Done: Separate list created, but unsure about what to do with Under Construction buildings that have already topped out. I included them in both lists, a sthey are officially the Xth-tallest building in the city, but are still oficially under connstruction. Raime 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notes are awfully wordy. trim them and remove material that is irrelevant to the topic athand. How does the fact that One Financial Plaza is "featured prominently in the background of the TV Series Family Guy" have anything to do with its status as current second tallest building in the city? Or the fact that Turk's Head "Has a rounded V-shape footprint due to the shape of the lot."
      •  Done: Notes section trimmed down, Many buildings now have empty entries.
    • Instead of throwing past tallest buildings in notes, makes a separate listing (either in a column or section).
      • Comment: This list would only have four buildings. Is this really necessary? Raime 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it turns out that all of the "tallest" information was incorrect, as neither the Biltmore or the Turk's Head Building ever surpassed the height of the capitol, which was built in 1904. Other sources rate them as tallest buildings only becaus ethe capitol is not always included as a skyscraper. However, on this list it is, so I have removed the "tallest from X to Y" information from the Notes section of every building except the Bank of America Building and the State House, which derserve mention. Since a "Historical Tallest" list would only list 2 buildings, it is really not needed. Raime 19:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One "under construction" is italicized,but another is between quotes.
      •  Done: Problem has been fixed, all now use Under Construction format. Raime 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Circeus 15:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What could be done to avoid mixing actual buildings with future is give them their own list, similar to List of tallest buildings by U.S. state, and there list theoretical ranking. Part of the interest in this list is there's a lot of new construction in the city and people wonder where the new projects would rank among existing buildings.--Loodog 15:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We are not talking about List of tallest buildings by U.S. state (if it has the same problem, then it has to be fixed). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: we cannot list buildings that don't even exist yet in a list of tallest buildings! Just put them in a different section, and move them up when they are actually completed. Circeus 15:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think WP:CRYSTAL is applicable here, as no certain claims are being made about buildings not under construction. As of now (August 4), all under construction buildings have topped out physically, so there's no danger of asserting the heights these buildings will rise to. All proposed buildings have heights estimated by developers, though these often change as planning progresses. Proposed buildings could therefore be given their own list, and an appoximate ranking based on current data, knowing that this could change. But by completely ruling out this material, we're removing very interesting information which I'm sure is one of the reasons readers view this article.--Loodog 18:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

          Side comment: I don't know if this was unintentional, but please don't remove my postings from the talk page.--Loodog 18:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have removed the incomplete buildings from the list, and placed them in a new list. However, I agree with Loodog. There was no presumption of exact claims being made, and it even stated in the introductory sentence: "Future structure's ranks are approximated in parentheses". However, I moved it to keep it consistent with the Paris list, which is currently the only featured "tallest buildings" list. Raime 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, there are two, but they were listed in different sections of WP:FL (London is the other, and I can see quite a few fixes that should be made to it...). Circeus 19:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, as long as all other Featured lists use this format, this list needs to as well. Raime 19:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Circeus, do you have any other concerns that need to be addressed? Since all above concerns were met, are you still strongly opposed?
      • I think I can Support now. Circeus 20:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Loodog 15:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Providence&oldid=1143867761"