Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by Giants2008 19:21, 16 December 2012 [1].
List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford edit
List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's plastered with maintenance tags... Also:
- MOS issues:
- All needs to be updated following a new "tallest" building.
I know they're not major issues, but I need subject-matter experts to ensure the list is up to scratch. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delistdue to concerns with the WP:MOS, and outdated, as well as tags. TBrandley 22:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Delist as failing 3.b. I see no reason to have this list outside of City of Salford. Nergaal (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For goodness sake, have we all forgotten how easy it is to fix things? I do realise though that it's even easier to plaster tags and initiate
deletiondelisting discussions, so ... Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Please note the maintenance tags were there when I found it, and in my nomination I stated "I need subject-matter experts" to help to ensure the list is both accurate and meets the current standards. Also note this is not a "deletion discussion". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I never suggested that you did add the tags, I was making a general point. So far as the points you raised are concerned, I think the date formatting is consistent now, the punctuation of the image captions corrected, and the dashes fixed. The rest I'll work on later if nobody gets there before me. Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now also made the tables sortable and WP:ACCESS compliant, and made a start on updating the article for buildings completed since it was written. Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note the maintenance tags were there when I found it, and in my nomination I stated "I need subject-matter experts" to help to ensure the list is both accurate and meets the current standards. Also note this is not a "deletion discussion". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - good work. Some minor issues:
- "taller than 50 metres" every building listed is 55 metres or taller, so can we confirm there are no buildings between 50 and 54 metres tall in Salford?
- "This list of the tallest buildings and structures in Salford ..." we don't start featured articles with "This article about ..." so that needs to be updated.
- Note (a) is referenced but note (b) isn't.
- "Cathedral Church of St. John the Evangelist (RC)" caption, either ditch (RC) or explain it. I don't think it's necessary.
- Why the difference in minimum height of those buildings listed (50m) and those proposed (60m)?
- External link needs to be explained rather than just linked.
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The basis of the list is here, which lists no buildings between 50 and 54 metres high.
- Fixed.
- Fixed.
- No idea, it was like that when I came across it.
- The external link was pretty useless anyway, so I've removed it.
- Fundamentally though, the accuracy of this list is compromised by the lack of available information on the several high-rises built in MediaCityUK in the last few years, such as Blue, Orange and White. I've failed to come up with any reliable sources, despite asking for help from the developers and the architects, so unless anyone can do better than I've been able to do I think this article will have to be delisted on that basis. Malleus Fatuorum 04:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the work on the list Malleus, it's in a much better state. I also appreciate your candidness regarding the potential compromise resulting from limited info on the newly developed buildings. I was hoping we could find an SME to contribute, or at least someone with access to that kind of information. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still possible I'll hear something back from either Peel or the architects, as it's less than a week since I contacted them, so fingers crossed. Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We have pretty flexible time constraints here at FLRC, so we can leave it another week or two. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I now have some better news to report. I've just received an email from the developer, Peel Group, confirming the heights of the two towers I was most uncertain about, Blue and Orange. I'm still hoping that Salford City Council's web site will soon once again allow access to approved planning applications, to be able to provide an easily available reliable source, but failing that I could presumably forward the Peel Group's email on to OTS? Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We have pretty flexible time constraints here at FLRC, so we can leave it another week or two. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still possible I'll hear something back from either Peel or the architects, as it's less than a week since I contacted them, so fingers crossed. Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the work on the list Malleus, it's in a much better state. I also appreciate your candidness regarding the potential compromise resulting from limited info on the newly developed buildings. I was hoping we could find an SME to contribute, or at least someone with access to that kind of information. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any more opinions here? There's one delist that's pre-Malleus' work, and another on 3b grounds that I don't understand; a list of tallest buildings isn't ideal for a main city article. This is in no consensus territory right now, so hopefully some more reviewers will speak up. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Malleus' great work to improve the article. Great job! TBrandley 18:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm really happy to see the list has been massively improved by Malleus and think the remaining tweaks are in the margins of whether or not we should delist. It would be better if we could reference everything perfectly, but that's not going to happen. I also fail to understand the "logic" behind Nergaal's 3b oppose, it makes no sense to me whatsoever. So, from all of that, I'd go for a keep.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.