Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Oakland, California/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 by Dabomb87 23:27, 8 December 2009 [1].

List of tallest buildings in Oakland, California edit

Nominator(s): —Chris!c/t 22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC) & User:Hydrogen Iodide[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating my first tallest buildings list and I think it fulfills the FL criteria. —Chris!c/t 22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am aware of the criteria regarding red links. I am reluctant to create extremely short stubs for shorter, less notable buildings, but I will do so if requested.—Chris!c/t 00:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looking over the history of the article, User:Hydrogen Iodide should also get credit for this nomination, as he was also a primary contributor to the article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added.—Chris!c/t 23:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments

  • Is the year column for the year construction began or completed? Might be worth specifying.
  • Maybe I'm missing it, but what does the asterisk on the Height column for proposed building signify?
  • Add name from article to references 49, 56 (Christopher Heredia) and 52 (Ryan Tate).

—NMajdan•talk 15:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done all—Chris!c/t 18:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Year column in the proposed section still needs to be clarified. If its the year it was completed as with the previous section, then obviously the building needs to be moved to the previous section. I would assume in this case it means when construction began, will begin, or is anticipated to begin.—NMajdan•talk 20:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, miss that. Now done—Chris!c/t 21:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit the image captions. (two examples, and there are more: "Oakland City Hall is was the...", "The Tribune Tower is the eleven eleventh tallest...").—NMajdan•talk 21:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done—Chris!c/t 00:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support.—NMajdan•talk 12:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I'd start with "United States" rather than "U.S."
  • "over 69" - sounds odd to me. So not "over 70"? Or what?
  • alt text could be a lot more comprehensive, for instance the lead image you don't even mention it's a night-time image.
  • "back in 1907." - "back" not needed, sounds a little colloquial.
  • " to the Bank of America Building" why repeat the building name? Poor prose.
  • And it gets a little confusing - when was the building made taller? If it was 27 stories, was it taller than the Oakland City Hall?
  • "August 2009" - almost November 2009, can we update?
  • the "clear blue sky" in alt text has several clouds... as before, the alt text could be much more descriptive.
  • What does an en-dash in the Year mean?
  • Not sure 330 (101) and 336 (102) are consistent - for one extra metre, you get six extra feet?
  • " Table entries with dashes (—) indicate that information regarding building floor counts or dates of completion has not yet been released. The "Year" column indicates the year in which a project was announced or construction of a building began" - inconsistent... these are proposed, so they must have a date of proposal, right?
  • Any reason why some are redlinked and some are not linked at all?

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed most of them. I realized that the alt texts I wrote aren't perfect. But I am not exactly a good writer, so any guidance would be appreciated. The height discrepency results from rounding and I am not sure how to fix it.—Chris!c/t 19:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Convert actually yields the same height: "330 feet (101 m)" and "336 feet (102 m)".—Chris!c/t 19:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why there isn't a full stop after the notes for Oakland City Hall?
  • "information regarding building floor counts or dates of proposal" all have floor counts but one doesn't have a height so reword this.
  • Street address doesn't sort correctly, in fact I wonder if it needs to sort at all...
Everything else is fixed.—Chris!c/t 19:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dates of completion has not yet been released." - this is odd because it implies (to me) that the buildings are incomplete, doesn't it? So they should be in the other table perhaps? I'm confused...
How is this confusing?? Can you explain more?—Chris!c/t 07:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it confusing because these buildings are in the "Tallest building" section, not the "under construction or proposed" section. So I would infer that the buildings are complete. So why do they not have a date of completion? How do you know they're complete if they don't have a completion date? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. But there isn't much I can do. If RS like Emporis.com tells me that a building is complete but doesn't show the date of completion, then it is recorded as such here.—Chris!c/t 19:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I understand your position but this is a bit of an issue for me I'm afraid. If a building is complete, it's complete. If not, it shouldn't be in the list which infers complete buildings. Perhaps there are other sources which could help resolve this? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly try to obtain the year from the building official site. But simply because the date is unknown, doesn't mean that the building is not complete.—Chris!c/t 00:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The year for the 2 buildings are not known. I looked everywhere. Although the year is unknown, the buildings are completed based on the sources.—Chris!c/t 18:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. A challenge. No paper sources available for this kind of thing? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether these can be used is another matter, but it would seem that the taller building was opened in 1956. That's not a definitive source of the year of opening, but I'd say its beyond question it has been opened. I think I may have gotten myself confused here (and this isn't a reliable source anyway), but is this the smaller building? Obviously we can't use that as a source, but if it is the same building then that should help in the quest for a reliable source. WFCforLife (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping me. The first source definitely works since it is government document. I am not sure if the second is referring to the same building. There are many AT&T buildings in the US.—Chris!c/t 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WFCforLife

Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* "Tallest building in the 1900s" could do with a footnote to disambiguate between the decade and the century. I know it's a bit picky, but sort by year and you will see why this could potentially cause confusion.
Fixed—Chris!c/t 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do we know that Emerald Views be the tallest building in Oakland? Is it definitely going to be finished before the taller buildings in that table.
Not sure what you mean. But if the Emerald Views is built, then yes it will be the tallest.—Chris!c/t 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The year column in the under construction table is questionable. Personally I think it should refer to the year in which the project was first proposed (presumably there would be a record of planning applications, meaning that we could complete this column?). Alternatively it could be used for the date that construction started. In any case, it should refer to one or the other, not both.
Fixed—Chris!c/t 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it there for now. As an aside I absolutely love the panoramic shot. WFCforLife (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think 325 7th Street should be removed altogether. No height suggests to me that it's at a very early stage and should at best be considered tentative. It can always be re-included if something more concrete (literally or metaphorically) unfolds.
Removed—Chris!c/t 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table entries with dashes (—) indicate that information regarding the building has not yet been released. Needs changing. If a building has been proposed, it has been proposed publicly (otherwise the sources wouldn't know about it). I accept that finding the year this happened may be impossible (and therefore am not saying you have to do so), but the information has been released.
Reword, see if it works—Chris!c/t 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 555 image cuts through the header, and should be moved down.
Fixed, I think—Chris!c/t 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not asking for the redlinked articles to be created. Indeed, the creation of articles for the sake of an FLC is a bad thing in my opinion. But I'm wondering if some of them should be linked at all? Oakland is a city of around 500,000 people, and it strikes me as somewhat surprising that it would have that many notable buildings (and that's ignoring the fact that there are several notable buildings that aren't skyscrapers).
I have tried finding an articles to link the building to,but I don't see anything.—Chris!c/t 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a speific guideline that relates to buildings? I just find it difficult to believe that every high-rise in the world warrants an article. WFCforLife (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, so I can remove the red links. I don't know of any guideline specifically—Chris!c/t 02:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by from KV5
  • I like the panorama too, I think it's a great idea, but it's even wider than my widescreen monitor. It may need to be made scrollable in consideration of WP:ACCESS. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resize—Chris!c/t 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Good article, but some questions.
  1. How is the lower cutoff (200 feet) for inclusion chosen? High-rise does not seem to mention such number.
    This is really arbitrarily chosen, so I don't know—Chris!c/t 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not include all of the "over 40" high-rises? Compared to other "List of tallest buildings in US-city", this list is rather short.
    Yes, this is short but I don't see the need to include all buildings. Other tallest buildings lists do not include all buildings. List of tallest buildings in New York City only includes buildings above 600 fts. List of tallest buildings in San Diego only includes buildings above 300 fts.—Chris!c/t 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, the New York City list has 82 buildings and that of San Diego 29, compared to 21 for this list. Are those below-200 feet buildings not notable?
    No, they are not.—Chris!c/t 22:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is there a chance to have a picture for every building in a "picture" column?
    Most buildings don't have image—Chris!c/t 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there no wikipedians in Oakland who could take pictures? Did you check flickr and other sources? bamse (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I try flickr but can't see anything.—Chris!c/t 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You could try contacting somebody from Category:Wikipedians in Oakland, California or put a request at WP:RP.
    place the request image tag on the talk page—Chris!c/t 22:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. For the time being it is ok. I hope that you will have enough pictures for a dedicated picture column soon. bamse (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. What is the default ordering of the table?
    Fixed—Chris!c/t 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.
  4. How does the "coordinates" column sort?
    Removed sorting
    Thanks. Same for the last table please.
    Done—Chris!c/t 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.
  5. Is it possible to have a "coordinates" column for the under construction/proposed table?
    Coordinate unknown for proposed buildings—Chris!c/t 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough.
  6. What does the note in the caption: "(Some buildings are identifiable using cursor)" mean?
    It means not all buildings are identifiable, or the name doesn't show when your cursor hovers on the picture.—Chris!c/t 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool!

bamse (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

two more questions:

  1. In the caption "Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building complex was the seventh tallest along with EM Harris State Office Building." you probably want "was"->"is"?
    Done—Chris!c/t 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.
  2. What is the point of the "status" column in the section: "Tallest buildings under construction and proposed"? If there are no buildings under construction it is not necessary to write about it in the section heading and text.
    It seems unnecessary to have this column at this point since all are in the proposed status. But if construction begin, then this column will be useful—Chris!c/t 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. OK.

bamse (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. bamse (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "feet (m)" should be "feet (meters)" or "ft (m)". --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done—Chris!c/t 00:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, per WP:MOSNUM the conversion is always abbreviated, so I undid this edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't know that.—Chris!c/t 02:53, 9 December 2009 (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_in_Oakland,_California/archive1&oldid=1207833599"