Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 23:50, 19 February 2008.

List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester

[edit]

Self nomination - I am nominating this list as it is clear and concise with full references. Similar to the featured list List of tallest buildings and structures in London and brings useful information with links to the notable buildings and statistics for the ones not notable enough for an article. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 16:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk)
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hello, I enjoyed the list, but have some comments before I can support.

  • The comparative height chart is so small it's not really useful unless clicked on. Consider making it larger? Done └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Manchester has a recognisable skyline..." - can you qualify this statement? Unable to find a source so removed, although true in my opinion it may be a breach of WP:PEACOCK so best to get rid.  Done └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 19:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Not a policy, but)... I prefer a more British English with Second World War rather than the US sequel variant of World War II. Done └and-rew┘┌talk┐
  • Could link Beetham Tower in the lead. Done Rudget. 17:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An even taller ..." - axe the "even" - "A taller..." will be fine..! Done Rudget. 17:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Inacity Tower" bold in the lead? No need.  Done └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 17:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Not convinced by myself but....) isn't high rise hyphenated usually? Done └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 18:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the tallest town hall in the United Kingdom,..." needs a citation really. No source can be found on the net or in the books I have checked so removed.  Done └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When image captions are complete sentences, they should end with a full stop (per the WP:MOS).
  • Per one of the possible FLC criteria, 1(a)-1, it should bring together a set of existing articles. A number of these buildings aren't linked. Something to consider (since there are other criteria which could equally apply to this list) - I'd expect to see articles for each of these - some of the US lists of tall buildings are complete in that they have articles for all buildings in the list.
    • Criteria 1(a)3..."contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles". Most of the smaller buildings are simply residential apartment towers which have no notable features for an article. Obviously they can't be missed out from this list so they are added with no linked article but full statistical information. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 19:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I appreciate that criterion, I've used it myself. No worries, I won't object based on this by any means, just wondered if it was possible (although a lot of work) to create articles for the buildings not linked to at this time. Wouldn't hurt but in a way it's outside the remit of this FLC if we go with 1(a)3... so no bother! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider central alignment of some columns in the table, particularly Built, Height and Floors. Also, narrow the Built column and expand the Use column, you may just about get every row on a single line (I'm running low-res so if I can see it, most can!).
  • Any reason why you say "Office & Retail" and not "Office & retail"? No need to over-cap. Done Rudget. 17:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are Lowry House and Ramada Renaissance Hotel without Built dates? Done └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the tallest structures won't have a Floors column, try to make all columns beforehand the same width as above to make the tables look consistent where possible. Done └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 17:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the comments help, and please let me know if I can be of any further use. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from Seegoon
Comments from Seegoon

I have a few grievances with this article, but all in all I'm very impressed.

  • Is there any chance you could improve the lead image? I added a {{ShouldBePNG}} template to it, because it has compression artefacts that really aren't necessary.  Done └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 21:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first and second sentences don't really run on to each other at all. I'd be tempted to put a paragraph break between them.  Done └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 20:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1960s and 1970s including" - shouldn't there be a comma before including?  Done └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 19:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including the 118 metres" - shouldn't this be "metre", the singular? You don't say "the 30 storeys XXX tower", for instance, you say "the 30-storey XXX tower". The same applies throughout the article.
  • As for the table - it would be useful if some columns were sortable. I'm not an expert on this however, I'm sure The Rambling Man might be able to help out. Another issue is your use of ampersands, which is generally discouraged at all times.
    • I'm happy to help with any tabular suggestions!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure a sortable wikitable will work here, I tried defining the table as "wikitable sortable" and it made a real mess of it, I think it is because two rows are used for the header of the table. If you know of a way to make it sortable without changing the formatting too much that would be great. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 23:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can actually make specific columns unsortable. The problem is that I think your table is fucking gorgeous the way it is and arse-ing with it too much would be a shame. Anyway, information on how to go about this can be found here. Whether it can work on headers split over two rows I don't know, but that'll be fun for you to try. It's not something I'd describe as a major grievance... Seegoon (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow you really like the table then! Anyway I tried the class="unsortable" and everything but it really does bugger the whole thing up, it moves the headers into the middle of the table, makes empty boxes and just makes a total mess. Either I remove all the pretty colours and formatting or leave it as it is, it's not a huge table but it would be nice to sort the years but I think people will survive. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 01:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Not done as the table will not sort with current formatting and is not totally necessary. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 03:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, the content is perfectly decent, and I like the lead a lot. Seegoon (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore me - there is another part behind the banking hall [1] Pit-yacker (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Both this article and its model, London tallest buildings, should have their columns sortable. This is the defacto norm for such tables. Hmains (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you say, that is de facto, therefore not a fail in terms of FLC criteria. To make the table sortable, one would have to remove all style formatting on the table including the split column heading. This would make the table untidy and vulgar to look at. The table is already ordered by size and the only other ordering I think anyone would want to see is by year, as there are only 20 buildings on the list, the majority of people will be able to rank them in their head. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 16:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - not worked much on it apart from a few edits, either way meets FLC criteria. Rudget. 13:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A beautiful list (and article), meets the criteria, and improved through the FLC -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Numerous tallest building lists have been promoted following the format proposed herein. However, I am disappointed that so few of the buildings are represented by images. Personally, I would prefer that all tallest building lists either used a format like say List of longest suspension bridge spans with as many images as possible represented or using {{double image}} or {{triple image}} along the right side. I am sure many more than five of these buildings have good images. Either of the latter two templates could accommodate many more images and for many cities almost all of the buildings have images and could be reformatted like the list above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Twenty images would be excessive in this case, in my opinion. The current images are a representative sample of the tallest in the list. The double or triple image templates would not work as there is not enough room at the side of the list especially for those using a smaller resolution and would cause overlapping onto the table. Thanks for your suggestions but I really don't feel it would be possible, others may have a different opinion though. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSupport I would like to see an historical tallest list as seem in the other tallest buildings lists. Besides making this page less repetitive than other lists that exist online already, the information is useful, interesting and makes the article closer to the tallest buildings lists that already exist.Medvedenko (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a great list (after seeing the blue tables, I am tempted to change all U.S. building lists to this method). But I have a few questions. Why are twenty tallest, etc., bolded at the beginning of a section? This is not needed. Also, has converting the list from a set number of entries to a height limit (50 m, perhaps) been considered? This is common for all building lists (see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Boston). Also, is there a skyline image that can be added to the lead? This is also a standard for most building lists. Rai-me 15:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, why is the section titled "Approved and under construction buildings" when there are proposed buildings on the list as well? "Tallest under construction, approved, and proposed" would be more appropriate and more consistent with other tallest building lists. Rai-me 20:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak oppose, until a height limit is added to this list. Also, per Trance addict's comment below, I agree that individual references to Emporis and/or SkyscraperPage in each entry would add to the list, and that the "Status" section is unnecessary for the completed buildings section. Finally, I also think that a timeline section should be added; as noted above, almost all building lists have them, even if they are only a few entries long. But the most pressing issue is the height limit. Cheers, Rai-me 02:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but each entry in the building list needs a reference(s) to Emporis and/or SkyscraperPage, as per the tallest building-FLs. There also needs to be a section titled Notes for these references. A status column is unnecessary for the first two sections (tallest buildings and tallest structures), since all entries listed under "tallest buildings" are either nearing completion (topped out) or completed. The third section, Approved and under construction buildings, needs to be split up into two or three sections, as per List of tallest buildings in San Francisco. Good luck with this list! Cheers. Trance addict 17:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Why do some of the buildings have links and others do not? I think that all buildings should be linked, even if no article exists. This would create consistency with other tallest buildings lists. Also, what is the purpose for having Salford Quays, Beetham Tower and Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester in the "See also" section? They do not seem to relate directly to the tallest buildings and structures in Manchester. I think they should be removed. Third, I think the last template on the page, {{Manchester B&S}}, should be converted to a navbox so that it fits with the two other templates. And last, I think the buildings need more sources. Most of the featured tallest buildings lists have at least two sources for each building. These sources are usually Emporis.com and SkyscraperPage.com. Sometimes buildings are only listed on one database and not another. By using information from multiple sources, you ensure that there are no missing structures. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that links to the Beetham Tower and Salford Quays should be removed, but I don't see a strong reason to remove Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester, as both that page and this page cover information relating to Manchester buildings. Also, if you believe that a template transcluded onto a page should be changed, that should be brought up on the template discussion page; the template not being a navbox dosn't relate directly with the quality of this list. And I agree about the sources. Cheers, Rai-me 04:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Sources. |  Done See also. | I don't think there is any point creating masses of red links for no reason as many of the buildings are residential towers and will never be notable enough for an article. As already mentioned above, that template was created before the development of this article so a message on the talk page would be more appropriate and has nothing to do with this FLC. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 08:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_Manchester&oldid=1126721242"