User talk:Cherub79

Re:Singapore tallest list

I'd be happy to assist! The list looks great already. I am a little busy today, but I'll be able to work on it this weekend. One thing you could do now (or whenever you have time) would be to move the image column to the third column as opposed to the last (i.e., between the building names column and height column), per List of tallest buildings in San Diego; this has been requested before at WP:FLC.

It would be great if you would help out with the US FTD; I haven't really been an active editor for the past few months until now, so the FTD has had virtually no activity. All that really needs to be done is to bring List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas and List of tallest buildings in the United States to featured list status, the latter of which will likely be a massive task. Still, the FTD is really close to the finish line, so it would great to finally complete it. Cheers, Rai•me 13:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was one of two co-founders of WP:SKY (along with User:Hydrogen Iodide), and have contributed to 31 featured tallest buildings lists. Charlotte skyscrapers definitely need work, so that would be a good project to undertake. Generally, height and floor couunt should always be mentioned in the lead, even if there is an infobox. The lead is meant to summarize the article, and if the article the stub, then the lead needs to encompass all notable, referenced facts about a building- regardless of whether or not they are present in the infobox. At the same time, all information that can be included in the infobox should be; the box is essentially a reference guide for those who want to learn a summary about a building but don't have time/want to read a whole article. Given that the Bank of America Corporate Center is the 24th-tallest in the country, there definitely be enough reliable outside sources to bring it to good article status. Featured would be more difficult but I would say still possible.

Now, back to the Singapore list - I will begin today by copyediting the lead and center aligning most columns (a new request made at the candidacy of List of tallest buildings in San Diego, the most recently featured tallest building list). I think we should use the San Diego list as a model as much as possible, given that it has been awhile since I have nominated a list and apparently some new requests have been made. If you have time, I think it would be good to remove the "address" column - this information is much more suited to an individual article, as it doesn't really have anything to do with a building's height. And then there is the question of listing what type of building (office, residential, mixed) a skyscraper is. Traditionally, this information is not included in a tallest building list, as it isn't really relevant to the height of a building (besides stating "tallest residential building in the city"). If you strongly feel it should be included, we may be able to make a separate column, but I would advise against its inclusion - no other currently featured tallest building list is structured that way. Cheers, Rai•me 15:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just contacted another user and asked him to complete an image map for the Singapore list using this image. For an example of an image map, see the lead image in List of tallest buildings in Jersey City. The current image being used as a building guide, File:Singapore, City skyline, Aug 07.jpg, has an extremely long caption that isn't really appropriate for an FL, especially when considering that an image map accpomplishes the same thing without adding numbers to an image or writing every building's name out in the caption. On that note, I am going to move the panorama image in the lead to below the TOC as a replacement for the building guide image. Cheers, Rai•me 16:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be okay to remove the Chinese name column? English the main language of Singapore anyway, so per WP:SKY/TBL the column isn't necessary. I think it looks strange with only about half of the towers having corresponding Chinese names. Cheers, Rai•me 20:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! The list is looking really great. As for the Chinese name column, the site we used in the past was SkyscraperPage.com, as for Chinese buildings it usually had Chinese translations under the English names (see, for example, List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong). Unfortunately, since the primary language of Singapore is English and not Chinese, the site doesn't give any translations. So I'm not sure what to do.

One thing that definitely needs to be done is the creation of four articles: UIC Building, DBS Building Tower Two, Lippo Centre, Singapore, and ComCentre. At past FLCs, a building list was considered incomplete unless all buildings in the main "Tallest buildings" section had their own articles. Since all Singapore skyscrapers have their own articles with the exception of these four, I think the articles should definitely be created. You can do that if you want; I am going to center each column (except Notes), as is the case with List of tallest buildings in San Diego. Eventually, we also need to alter the format of the height column as well - units should not be restated on every entry, so 215 m (705 ft) should really be 215 (705). Cheers, Rai•me 00:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note on writing the building articles: I set up WP:SKY/A with another user to use as a rough guideline for writing articles about skyscrapers. Sources such as Emporis and SkyscraperPage.com are very useful to use as sources. Of course, the articles for the aforementioned buildings don't need to be extremely long or thorough. Cheers, Rai•me 00:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to remove the Chinese name column, since, besides the fact that it was incomplete, the table looked very "scrunched" with both the Chinese and coordinates columns, and the coordinates column is the only one of the two that is required. I left some of the coordinate entries blank because I couldn't find the information in the building articles; I try to fill them in some time tomorrow (if you have time, and you want to do it, you can check out WP:COORD to find out where to get the correct data). Cheers, Rai•me 04:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! The article looks good. I will work on the Notes column tonight, and then after the coordinates are done, the list should be just about ready for FLC. Cheers, Rai•me 16:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just nominated the list at WP:FLC (see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Singapore/archive1) and listed you as a co-nominator. Hope that's okay! The only thing left to do (besides address comments at the list's candidacy) is create an article for UIC Building - I can do that tomorrow if you don't have time or don't want to. Anyway, thanks for all the work you did for this list! Hopefully we can get going on the Bank of America Corporate Center article soon, if you're still interested. Cheers, Rai•me 04:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that sounds good. Right now I am finishing up article creation for List of tallest buildings in Mobile for the FTD. Speaking of that, can you read my proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Featured Topic Drive? I really doubt the featured topic drive, as originally planned, would be promoted. My new proposal would require a little more work, but, IMO, would have a much better chance of being promoted. Cheers, Rai•me 16:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FTD

Well, it looks like the original proposed FTD would not pass at WP:FTC per this discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions. According to experienced editors, the only non-arbitrary way to construct a featured topic with tallest building lists is to include all tallest building lists... But, the topic would be actually divided four separate featured topic based on the four main regions of the U.S. - Northeast, South, Midwest, and West.

I'm not sure if you're still interested in doing this, but I think that doing the Midwestern featured topic would be the easiest right now. Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis are all FLs, so that leaves St. Paul, Rochester, Minnesota, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Omaha, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Dayton, Des Moines, Akron, Fort Wayne, Grand Rapids, and Wichita. What do you think? We could also do the West or the South - I just think we should hold off on the Northeast, as apparently we may have to make another hole list for New York City that encompasses the buildings between 500 and 599 feet... Cheers, Rai•me 03:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this reply is late - I took a short wikibreak. I'm sure you know by know that the Singapore list was featured a fews days ago - it took a little while to promote due to a few concerns that are now fixed. I am almost done with List of tallest buildings in the United States - next will probably be List of tallest buildings in St. Louis. Cheers, Rai•me 03:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your FLC nomination

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Singapore/archive1 has seen some recent comments, along with an !oppose. Closures are scheduled for Saturday, so if you have time to address them, please do so. Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat 05:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte tallest list

How sad.

South Tryon Square was one of the top four back in the 60s. A few weeks ago I was looking at a great photo of downtown Charlotte and together with 200 South Tryon it just dominated the skyline. But I was not allowed to use it here and it wasn't online. It was a beautiful photo and I told the librarian to please get it to where I could link online.

I forgot to ask how tall it was but you could tell it was way up there.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]