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 02:23, 17 March 2008.

List of tallest buildings in Toronto[edit]

I believe that this list should be a WP:FL. Please bring up any concerns that you find with the article and I will do my best to address them. Gary King (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - as ever, a great start point for review - my comments...

" 298 metres (978 ft)" etc - ideally use the ((convert)) template, or, at the very least, use non-breaking spaces between values and their units and ensure your conversions are consistent and use the same unit abbreviations. Right now there's a mix (for example) of metre and meter.
- Done Gary King (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"of over 14 " - these sort of sentences always read strangely to me... so 15? or more than 15?
- Done Gary King (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last sentence of lead could do with a citation.
- Done Whoopsie daisy... it was originally 15 buildings, but it turns out to be more like 440. Done! Gary King (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would centrally align rank, height, floors and year in the tables.
- Done I did do this before but someone reverted it. Other articles similar to this one do not center align them; anyways, I did it. Looks better. Gary King (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"at least 145 metres (476 ft) tall" - seems like an arbitrary cut-off point... especially when the future buildings table has "are planned to rise at least 130 metres (427 ft)." as the constraint.
- Done Gary King (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A personal point, but things like 2nd, 3rd and all that I'd prefer second, third (up to tenth)...
- Done Gary King (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the year in the table the year of completion? I'd clarify the point.
- Done Gary King (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For buildings with just references and no notes, is there no information available e.g. architects?
- Done Yes that's correct. Very little information on those buildings besides how tall it is and when it was completed (information grabbed from a construction site, so nothing about architects, history, etc.) Gary King (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Punctuation has gone astray in the future buildings table, notes column.
- Done Gary King (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the year in the future buildings the anticipated year of groundbreaking or completion or what? Could you clarify in the lead up to it?
- Done Gary King (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No spaces between the year and the separating en-dash in the timeline table.
- Done Gary King (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Height information missing for five of the buildings in the "timeline" table.
- Done Gary King (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Punctuation and reference placement needs work in the timeline table.
- Done Gary King (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just a minor note, but this list is partially based off of List of tallest buildings in Cleveland and so a lot of the conventions come from there. That article became an WP:FA about two months ago so I would consider the standards used in that article to be fairly recent. Gary King (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I had a dollar/pound/euro for every time I've heard that...! I'm aware that plenty of FLCs make it here based on other existing FLs but part of my job (as I see it) as an FLC reviewer is not to go with the flow, it's to pick at and dissect articles which I'm reviewing with no prejudice at all... You're doing a great job on these lists so no need to worry about what they're based on, as long as you don't mind if I pick up a few items in each one you nominate! I'll give it another look (oh, and by the way, I'll shortly have three lists of my own here at FLC so you can open fire, all weapons, soon!!) ... all the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm ready to comment on other FLCs just yet. Gary King (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I disagree! You're been here long enough to seize the day and give the rest of us a hard time! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - my concerns addressed, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Gary, you mentioned that you modeled your work on this list after List of tallest buildings in Cleveland another featured list. There are a total of 12 "tallest buildings" lists that have made FL status. The list is found here on the WikiProject Skyscraper page. These lists, and ones that are still being improved, are built around guidelines created by the Skyscraper project for such lists. Anyway, you may find those guidelines helpful/informative if you were not already aware of them. Nice work on the Toronto list, I'll give it a more complete look through later and let you know any other comments. VerruckteDan (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of those, I will check them out. Gary King (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Neutral - Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists should be used as the guideline here. Some of the improvements suggested here actually went against the guideline and made the list worse. For example, there should not be width and alignment formatting in the tables and the height cutoff should not have been changed. Also, comparing it with the guideline it is clear this list is still missing a lot of substance. I have edited this list in the past and I believe it is not ready for nomination at this point. — Kelw (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of the nominator and other active editors, could you please list everything that does not conform to WP:Skyscrapers? Is the style guideline the only issue here? Specifics please :) Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI to everyone, this user has not been active on Wikipedia since March 9, 2008 (same day this message was posted here), so I have been unable to get any more information on why this person has chosen to oppose this list. I assume that the list now meets style guidelines, considering that Raime (talk · contribs) below has given his support to the list and is a member of the WikiProject Skyscrapers. Gary King (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gary King; Kelw's concerns have been met, as the list easily follows Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists, the increased height cutoff has been reverted, columns are no longer centrally aligned, and more substance (many more buildings, and soon a pinnacle height section) has been added. The closing editor should take this into account when considering Kelw's oppose, the only remaining one here. As a regular contributor to building lists, I believe that this one meets the criteria and is "ready for nomination" and passing. Cheers, Rai-me 23:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved concerns from Rai-me 01:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is an excellent list, but I have a few concerns:
- The most pressing issue here is the length of the list. A 150-meter cut-off is much too high. You can see the height cutoff information at Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists#Data cutoff. After all, Toronto has 1,718 high-rises. In comparison, List of tallest buildings in New York City has 82 building entries, List of tallest buildings in Chicago has 90 buildings, and List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong has 75 buildings. A data cutoff of 120 meters would allow this list to include 47 buildings, and 110 meters would provide for 80 buildings. Either one of those cutoffs would be much more acceptable.
  - None of those lists are FLs. Regarding the cut off, it was originally 140 meters, but User:The Rambling Man mentioned that it was too arbitrary so I bumped it up to 150 meters. Regarding number of towers, List of tallest buildings in Providence has 16 towers, List of tallest buildings in Tulsa has 17 towers, and List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester has 18 towers. These are all FLs. Gary King (talk) 07:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Tulsa, Providence, and Manchester lists are all about cities with very small skylines. This is outlined on Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists#Data cutoff - cities with larger skylines should obviously have longer lists. Including only the tallest skyscrapers over 150 m makes the list much less comprehensive, criterion #1b. List of tallest buildings in Miami and List of tallest buildings in San Francisco are two FLs that include 42 and 43 buildings, respectively. This list should be more along those lines. Cheers, Rai-me 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done Gary King (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The images should not be sized. Using "upright" instead of "200px" will allow individual browsers to size the images appropriately, and minimize potential column cramping.
  - Done Gary King (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the architect really need to be stated? This is not a standard for building lists, and it seems strange to list the architect for only 7 out of 14 buildings.
  - Yes, strange information to include. Removed from all towers. Gary King (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could the lead be expanded at all?
  - Not sure what else to add. It is comparable to the leads of List of tallest buildings in Cleveland (an FL) and List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia (another FL). Gary King (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would certainly add information about the Trump Tower and other tallers buildinsg proposed for construction. -- Rai-me 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The CN Tower should be added; see List of tallest buildings in Dallas, an FL which includes the non-building Reunion Tower, and List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas. Generally, a note is simply added stating that a structure is not a habitable building, but is included for comparison purposes.
  - Done Gary King (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stating "Part of X centre" is neither standard nor necessary; for many entries, it is obvious from the building's name. Anyway, this really shouldn't be included, as it is not overly relevant to building height, which is what matters here.
  - Done Gary King (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles need to be created for Residences of College Park and Harbourview Estates II. For shorter building, articles aren't always needed, but buildings over 150 meters should almost always have their own articles. Several of the future buildings should also have their own articles.
  - Created. Gary King (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the timeline section, a "Street address" column should be added and the "Years as tallest" column should be listed third, after "Name" and address but before height and floor count. This section, after all, measures by year over height. A "Notes" column also need not be preent here. See List of tallest buildings in San Francisco#Timeline of tallest buildings as an example.
  - Done Gary King (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Beard Building, as the city's first skyscraper, should most certainly have its own article.
  - Done Gary King (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:SEEALSO, List of tallest buildings in Canada should not be listed in the See also section, as it is already linked to in the text.
  - Done Gary King (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does The listed year indicates the year when construction was completed on the building really need to be stated?
  - Done Gary King (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Building names in captions should be wikilinked.
  - Done Gary King (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The information about future building construction in the lead should probably be expanded, IMO. But maybe that is just me.
- When stating "65th tallest building in the world", for example, "65th" and "tallest" need to be separated by a hyphen.
  - Done Gary King (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There should not be alignment formatting in the tables, with maybe the exception of the Floors column.
  - Done Gary King (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Buildings of equal height should be marked as "#=" in the rank column. For example, "11=" for the the 11th and 12th entries, as they are both 154 meters.
  - Done Gary King (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The future tallest building section should have at least one image, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists#Images.
  - Done Gary King (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Rai-me 04:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good job clearing all of those issues up. But, I have a few more concerns, so for the moment I still weak oppose this nomination.
- - As stated before, the list should be expanded to include more information about future projects, particularly the Trump Tower. Also, the second paragraphs should contain some info about the number of high-rises in the city.
  - Is it possible to get a lead image that includes the CN Tower?
    - I guess you can take your pick from CN Tower? I don't know what you're looking for. I can't find a CN Tower image that includes surrounding buildings. Gary King (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - How about Image:Toronto 2007.JPG? -- Rai-me 01:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay added. Gary King (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It appears that the CN Tower is measured by pinnacle height, whereas Scotia Plaza is not. The main list should only measure by architectural height, with a separate section called "Tallest buildings by pinnacle height" to include antennae (see List of tallest buildings in Boston and List of tallest buildings in Detroit).
    - Fixed Gary King (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The columns in the future buildings and timeline lists need to be left-aligned, as with the main tallest buildings list table.
    - Done Gary King (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some note should be added next to the CN Tower stating that it is the tallest completed free-standing structure on land in the world.
    - Done Gary King (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A "status" column is missing from the future buildings section - this indicates if a building is under construction, approved, or proposed.
    - Done Gary King (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the section header for "Tallest under construction, proposed, and approved", The years listed in the table indicate the year when construction will be complete should be removed.
    - Done Gary King (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some kind of heading should be added for the timeline section.
  - Notes, such as the note about the CN Tower, should be separated from references. See List of tallest buildings in Boston#Notes.
    - Done Gary King (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The street address column in the timeline section seems to be imcomplete. Do no buildings have numbers to include, such as 44 Bay Street instead of simply Bay Street?
    - I can't find the addresses for 3 of them. Gary King (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Entries such as Maple Leaf Square North Tower don't need to overly specific in height; 186 m is fine, instead of 185.5, as all other entries are rounded up or down.
    - Done Gary King (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the timeline section, "References" should be rewritten as "Reference", as each entry only has one citation.
    - Done Gary King (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Information about what buildings are in what developments still need to be removed from the future buildinsg section, and the image in both this section and the timeline section need to formatted with "upright", and for the timeline section, "200px" needs to be removed.
    - Done Gary King (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another image should be added to the main tallest building list.
    - Done Gary King (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Rai-me 01:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional~~ Support - great job! Looks like you got pretty much everything. All that is left is the addition of the "Tallest buildings by pinnacle height" section (again, see List of tallest buildings in Boston#Tallest buildings by pinnacle height), the addition of information relating to Trump Tower and other future buildings to the lead, and the addition of information in the lead regarding the number of high-rises in the city. Great work. Cheers, Rai-me 02:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Regarding the Pinnacle Height list, I don't know how I'd be able to compile the list any other way besides checking every tallest tower in Toronto until I had a suitable number of towers to create a list? It doesn't seem like this type of list is standard among Tallest Buildings lists. I've added information regarding future buildings in the lead. Number of skyscrapers added. Gary King (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just the top 10 buildings are included. All lists that have substantial differentiation in building height when including antennae include this section; for most it is not necessary. Here, given the below confusion regrding the CN Tower's height, it clearly is (First Canadian Place is also substantially taller when including its antenna). Rai-me 23:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done Gary King (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I have a couple of comments and they all relate to the CN Tower. In the lead, it states "While the CN Tower is Toronto's tallest landmark at...." Why was "landmark" used and not "structure?" This list is about the tallest buildings in Toronto, not the landmarks of Toronto. The sentence should be reworded. My second comment is about the amount of floors in the tower. 147 is just the number of "levels" on the staircase and not truly the number of floors. You should either keep the entry blank (like the Reunion Tower's entry in the List of tallest buildings in Dallas), replace 147 with "NA," or change it to the actual number of habitable floors (like the Stratosphere Tower or the Eiffel Tower at Paris Las Vegas in the List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas or the Space Needle in the List of tallest buildings in Seattle). --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gary King (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Comments: There is something else I noticed that needs to be addressed. A second source for the CN Tower should be added for consistency with other entries in this list and for consistency with other lists. Preferably, CN Tower's entry on Emporis.com should be that second source.

Another, probably more important, issue is the height of the CN Tower. In the list, it says the CN Tower stands at a height of 447 m (1,467 ft). This would mean that it is shorter than Taipei 101, which I am sure is a mistake (just for reference, Taipei 101 stands at 509 m (1,671 ft)). I looked at the height on SkyscraperPage and on Emporis. SkyscraperPage listed several heights. I noticed that the current height listed in the article (447 m) probably came from the height of the top floor which is 446.5 metres (1,465 ft). But, the height of buildings should not be the top floor, but the roof or spire (excluding antennae). The roof height is listed as 457.2 metres (1,500 ft) and the antenna is listed as 553.3 metres (1,815 ft). But still, the roof height would be shorter than Taipei 101. I realized that the height of the CN Tower that is listed in most places does in fact include the antenna.

If we want to use the height that most sources claim as the official height of the CN Tower, then we would use 553.3 metres (1,815 ft), which is what Emporis also uses. But, if we want to be consistent with this list, which "includes spires and architectural details but does not include antenna masts," then we would use the height of the roof (457.2 metres (1,500 ft)). Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, roof height it is. Gary King (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support All looks good now. Congrats! PeterSymonds | talk 07:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think "notes" should be used throughout the tables, for the sake of consistency.
- "Notes" is used in the first table because that column also contains text, while 'references' is used later on because those columns are only for references. This is the format for Skyscraper lists I believe. Gary King (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is "pinnacle height" used in other Featured building lists? If it is, is its meaning explained? And even if it isn't, I think it should.

That's it. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Pinnacle height is already explained in the paragraph in that section. Gary King (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Can't see any other issues to raise, and those two have been addressed satisfactoririly. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why does "Oxford Tower (Toronto)" redirect to PATH (Toronto)? An article for this building should be created, and there should also be one created for Empire Tower (Toronto). -- Rai-me 14:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Gary King (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see that some changes have been made while I was away, so I've modified my position above. — Kelw (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support - The CN Tower should not be ranked. The distinction between a building and a structure is an important one in Wikipedia, and the practice is to NOT rank structures in building lists. Note that the CN Tower is not ranked in List of tallest buildings in Canada or List of tallest buildings in the world. Instead, the CN Tower should be left off the list and there should only be a note explaining it is not a building. There are separate lists that rank just structures, and buildings together with structures, for example List of tallest structures in the world and List of tallest buildings and structures in Canada. — Kelw (talk) 23:29, 16 March 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.