Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque
- 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 19:28, 22 March 2008.
List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque[edit]
Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Tulsa and List of tallest buildings in Detroit. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai-me 03:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Support with question:
- Can a sentence start with "However" and be gramatically correct? I thought it was like starting one with "And" or "But"?
- Other than that it looks really good, seems to meet all the criteria, and is well written, referenced and presented, and stands up to the standard of other tallest building FLs. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the support. And you are right; a sentence starting with "however" in use as a conjunctive adverb cannot be grammatically correct - see wiktionary:however. I have added a semicolon between the two clauses. Thanks, Rai-me 12:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - looks like a great list, looks to me like it meets the standards set by previous "Tallest buildings" featured lists. VerruckteDan (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Almost half of the buildings in the main list are not linked at all. I believe they're more notable than the Chant Tower, a proposed building.
The word "currently" should be substituted with something more concrete.In the lead, it is stated that "There are currently two proposals" while the Proposed section lists three buildings.
Not done - The buildings do not need to be linked. They are non-notable hotels and office high-rises, and articles on them would likely be brought to AfD. Other recently passed building lists such as List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon and List of tallest buildings in Manchester do not have all buildings linked. The list meets the FL criteria, as it "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" (Criteria 1(a)3). And I would disagree that the Chant Tower is less notable than a non-notable hotel building such as the Wyndham Albuquerque Hotel; it would, after all, become either the tallest or the 2nd-tallest building in the city if completed.
- If "the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles", then none of the "members' should be linked; they're after all "not sufficiently notable". I see that Simms Building, Metropolitan Courthouse, and Park Plaza Condominiums are linked and listed here as tallest buildings in Albuquerque, that means that this list "brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria." The problem is that not all members have existing articles, so it fails the 1a1 criteria. At the same time, some members are notable to have existing articles, which means that this list fails the 1a3 criteria, as well.--Crzycheetah 21:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can lists not use both 1a1 and 1a3? Perhaps we should start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria, as this logic was used in the pass of List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester, which by your logic fails the criteria. Park Plaza Condominiums is notable, as it is the tallest residential skyscraper in New Mexico. The Metropolitan Courthouse is one of the newest skyscrapers in the city, notably one of the first skyscrapers to be constructed since 1990. The Simms Building was the first modern skyscrapers in the city. Some entries, such as three provious ones, are notable enough to warrant their own entries, while others are not. However, the non-notable ones cannot be excluded from the list. Other FLs also seem to have this situation, where not all entries are notable enough to warrant their own articles, whereas some are: List of works by Joseph Priestley, List of Shetland islands, List of Knight's Cross recipients, List of United Nations peacekeeping missions, and the aforementioned Manchester list. At the same time, some members are notable to have existing articles - if you can identify a building that is notable enough to warrant its own article, I will gladly create it. But take, for instance, the Wells Fargo Bank Building, the tallest building on the list to not have an article. What makes this notable? Cheers, Rai-me 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also, List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford is a current candidate, and it has only one entry linked out 17. Wouldn't it also fail the criteria by your reasoning? -- Rai-me 22:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I am only looking at this nominstion right now. Yes, you're right the WP:WIAFL should be clearer on this matter. As I see, the WP:WIAFL states that a list has to meet only one of the 1 a criteria. I fail to see how both 1a1 ad 1a3 criteria can be used simultenously because one requires existing articles and the other does not. It becomes a little oxymoronic to me. When I stated that some members are notable I was implying that Park Plaza Condominiums for instance has an article.--Crzycheetah 23:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also, List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford is a current candidate, and it has only one entry linked out 17. Wouldn't it also fail the criteria by your reasoning? -- Rai-me 22:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can lists not use both 1a1 and 1a3? Perhaps we should start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria, as this logic was used in the pass of List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester, which by your logic fails the criteria. Park Plaza Condominiums is notable, as it is the tallest residential skyscraper in New Mexico. The Metropolitan Courthouse is one of the newest skyscrapers in the city, notably one of the first skyscrapers to be constructed since 1990. The Simms Building was the first modern skyscrapers in the city. Some entries, such as three provious ones, are notable enough to warrant their own entries, while others are not. However, the non-notable ones cannot be excluded from the list. Other FLs also seem to have this situation, where not all entries are notable enough to warrant their own articles, whereas some are: List of works by Joseph Priestley, List of Shetland islands, List of Knight's Cross recipients, List of United Nations peacekeeping missions, and the aforementioned Manchester list. At the same time, some members are notable to have existing articles - if you can identify a building that is notable enough to warrant its own article, I will gladly create it. But take, for instance, the Wells Fargo Bank Building, the tallest building on the list to not have an article. What makes this notable? Cheers, Rai-me 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- If "the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles", then none of the "members' should be linked; they're after all "not sufficiently notable". I see that Simms Building, Metropolitan Courthouse, and Park Plaza Condominiums are linked and listed here as tallest buildings in Albuquerque, that means that this list "brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria." The problem is that not all members have existing articles, so it fails the 1a1 criteria. At the same time, some members are notable to have existing articles, which means that this list fails the 1a3 criteria, as well.--Crzycheetah 21:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Done - I removed its use throughout.- Done - Fixed.
- Thank you for reviewing the list. Cheers, Rai-me 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I still oppose based on notability issues.--Crzycheetah 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support (with a remark) - I object to the "Height" column, giving the height in "feet/m". The least that can be done is splitting the column in two columns, that will make things clearer. Secondly, use "feet, metre" or "ft, m", do not mix the two.
It would be best to simply use SI-units, but as this article is about Albuquerque where the metric system might not yet be common, the use of feet is defendable.Otherwise, good article.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)- Thank you for your support. The height column is presented in this format to allow the table to be sortable, but keep the height in one column. The table could be formatted in the manner of List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester, but then the table could not be sortable. And yes, feet are used here before SI units, as the US still uses US cutsomary units predominantly; per WP:UNITS, the main units for US articles should be feet. And feet (m) is used in accordance with WP:UNITS as well: In the main text, spell out the main units and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses. Cheers, Rai-me 22:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why is it important to keep the height in one column? But hey, I can live with this way;) Please ignore my objections to non-SI units, as they are not relevant here. But I still object to the "feet/m" notation. In the main text, you are right in saying
- Thank you for your support. The height column is presented in this format to allow the table to be sortable, but keep the height in one column. The table could be formatted in the manner of List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester, but then the table could not be sortable. And yes, feet are used here before SI units, as the US still uses US cutsomary units predominantly; per WP:UNITS, the main units for US articles should be feet. And feet (m) is used in accordance with WP:UNITS as well: In the main text, spell out the main units and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses. Cheers, Rai-me 22:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
"This lists ranks Albuquerque highrises that stand at least 135 feet (41 m) tall"
I do not want to change this, as this is good according to me (and WP:UNITS). But in the table, below "Height", you use "feet/m", and this is not the main text, so "feet/m" is just inconsequent here.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. Sorry for the confusion! Done - I agree, ft / m does look neater. I just think it is better to keep the Height in one column as it is standard for all US building lists, and also prevents the table from being "crunched" even more than it already is. Cheers, Rai-me 19:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - list look great just like the other FLs. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 21:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - MOJSKA 666 (msg) 08:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.