Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in San Francisco

List of tallest buildings in San Francisco

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: 17 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Raime 19:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this list for some time now, along with Hydrogen Iodide (who has been working on it much longer and is by far the primary editor). I believe it is up to FL-standards. The list is modeled after List of tallest buildings in Boston and List of tallest buildings in Miami, both of which are recently lsited FLs. I believe the list to be comprehensive, stable, well-organized and well-referenced. It also has 12 free images, as well as two fair use images (Image:Treasure Island Development.jpg and Image:Transbay Terminal Tower I.jpg); the images are relevant in their respective "Approved" and "Proposed" sections (no free images of any approved or proposed buildings in Miami exist), and both have thorough fair use rationales. Any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai-me 04:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt comments by Circeus

~~Oppose~~
- Missing articles in several sections that should at least be linked.
  - Done - But I gave to say that I disagree with this. The buildings without redlinks were non-notable, and do not really warrant their own articles. Should the articles be created, they would likely be deleted. Requesting articles about topics that are not notable enough to begin with is not really needed. Rai-me 15:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have to run now, but I forget to come back after giving it thoughts, do scream at me on my talk. I'm being scatterbrained these days. Circeus 16:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, it appears to me that 1481 Post Street could have it's own article, since if built, that tower will be the tallest building on SF's Cathedral Hill, according to the SkyscraperPage thread. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 17:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Asterisked notes in timeline should be content notes (wither with the ref system or template notes.
  - Done - Made asterisked notes in the timeline section into references. However, I left one asterisk note in the "Tallest buildings" section that indicates that a building is topped out, as this has been standard for other building list FLs and is used in only one entry. Rai-me 15:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Circeus 14:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I'm not too happy about the "tallest canceled" section. While these two particular projects might, for some reason, warrant a mention, I'm not sure they warrant a whole section. Maybe they can be placed as a separate table under "proposed" (they were, after all, proposed at some point) or somewhere in the lead? Also, I'm not sure the third skyline image is really necessary. Maybe consider identifying precisely the two most prominent buildings of the lead image. The large building on the right is 555 California Street, right? Also, is there a particular reason the list calls it "555 California Street" instead of "Bank of America Center" ? That BoA Center is ambiguous is not the best argument here... Circeus 02:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Identified the Transamerica Pyramid and 555 California Street in the lead image. I also removed the "tallest canceled" section. The reason why the list calls the BofA center 555 California is that Emporis lists 555 California as 555 California Street, not Bank of America Center (see here). I think the BofA article needs to be renamed to 555 California Street. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 04:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I can support now. Circeus 16:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The main reason that the Bank of America Center is listed as 555 California Street, besides the fact that that is the name used on Emporis and SkyscraperPage, is that it is the official name of the building, and it is referred to as such on the building website. The list, like other tallest building FLs, lists buildings by official names, not the common names used in Wikipedia article titles. For example, List of tallest buildings in Boston lists John Hancock Tower as "Hancock Place", which is the official, though not the common, name for the building. Rai-me 19:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also Done - I have also removed the 3rd skyline image. It was slightly redundant. Rai-me 19:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak oppose~~ There are fourteen redlinks right now, this isn't like those buildings FLs. The main table at least has to be redlink-free. Also, there are many empty cells in the tables, I suggest to add "N/A" (not applicable or not available or something similar). It just looks unfinished/incomplete with those empty cells. One more suggestion, it would be better if you remove the 12th tallest buildings image. There are many images and this one is short enough to remove in order to get rid of the whitespace below the table.--Crzy cheetah 04:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I've removed the 14th-tallest building image. But for the empty cells, this was the method used in List of tallest buildings in Providence, and that is why it was used here. I for one think think N/A looks very messy, but it can be added if necessary. However, I think that empty cells have the same effect; there is no information. And for the redlinks, per this discussion at WP:N, it was decided that skyscrapers do not have outright notability, and that pages that simply "mirror" Emporis or SkyscraperPage (as the majority of these buildings' articles would do) should for the most part not be created. You may have alredy noticed that two of the building articles (albeit two future building articles) have been deleted at List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia per lack of notability. Rai-me 11:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Empty cells may indicate different things(depending on a person), that's why I suggested to specify "N/A" is just an example, you may use different symbols, too, such as "-" or "*" and then add a note explaining why there is no info. As for the redlinks, I believe that all articles about existing buildings are notable and their stubs should be created.--Crzy cheetah 01:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I will add a note explaining the meaning of the empty boxes. As for the stub articles, there would classify as "mirrors of Emporis", which was discouraged per the above discussion at WP:N. However, I will make them if you deem it necessary. Rai-me 01:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Partially Done - I have added a "*" on the Proposed and Approved column headings for floors, height, and year, with a note at the bottom reading table entries without text indicate that information regarding building heights, floor counts, and/or dates of completion has not yet been released. Is this adequate? Rai-me 01:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, it is. As for the stubs, I didn't see any consensus in that discussion you referred to. My stand on this issue is that all skyscrapers should have "inherent notability" on Wiki.--Crzy cheetah 01:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There was really never going to be a consensus. Hydrogen Iodide asked a question, and it was answered. I also believe that skyscrapers should have "inherent notability" (that may be a poor word choice), but not all agree. Rai-me 02:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold - I know this nomination has been here for a period of over 10 days, but I believe Crzycheetah is correct; all existing buildings should have articles. I will try to get all of these articles created by tomorrow (several buildings need articles), so please do not close this nomination until then. Thanks, Rai-me 02:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Done - I have completed creating articles for all buildings in the "Tallest buildings" section. Crzycheetah, do you have any more concerns? Rai-me 20:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has never been hold before that all subjects needed articles, only most (although I myself have on occasion quibbled over the definition of "most"). In this case I certainly do not feel "too many redlinks" is a valid reason to oppose. Circeus 17:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for creating those articles.--Crzy cheetah 18:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good work on the article. All of the above concerns appear to have been addressed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]