Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Tallest structures in Paris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Tallest structures in Paris

This list had great potential for a featured list when I came across it. It is filled with "on-the-fly" information, which is informative yet quick to read or glance at. The table is set up quite nicely, the pictures on the side give a nice feel, the list is not too long and overwhelming (although if people need more information, about 50 or so more "Tours" are hidden in the page using <!-- -->), and the intro at the top gives a nice segway into what is to be read. (Special thanks to Metropolitan who created this page and helped bring it to where it is now.) → J@red ^talk+ _ubx  22:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. As nominator. → J@red ^talk+ _ubx  22:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Paris-panorama.jpg is tagged as being under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, but does not indicate who the creator is. --Carnildo 23:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That's sort of a lousy reason to oppose; the picture is great, though, and does tie it all together. I alerted the person who crested it, but he/she hasn't made any edits since January. Hope for the pic might be lost. → J@red ^talk+ _ubx  23:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's a pretty good reason. By not providing attribution when the license requires it, Wikipedia is in violation of the license, and is not legally permitted to use the image. We're not likely to get sued over it, but it's quite possible that the creator of the image will stop providing free-content images. --Carnildo 00:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, as well as the ridiculous number of red links. Phoenix2 00:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - well the list is much improved in the sense that there are no longer so many red links, but there are too many pictures, I think. If this is addressed, I will support the list. Phoenix2 04:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose you have 6 blue links out of ~60 links! you don't have references, just external links. Renata 00:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't this the Featured "List" category? I didn't think I was in the Portal category! It doesn't really matter if there are red links, because this page's sole purpose is not to link to other pages. It's a list! Not a portal. Red links shouldn't matter. → J@red ^talk+ _ubx  01:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The criteria states that there large majority should be blue links, to link to useful information, I think.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. (as placed on this page)

Okay, just quick comments. First, I would like to thanks Jared/JP06035 not simply for the nomination, but also for his work on the page (making it looks cleaner). As for the picture of La Défense skyline, if there's any copyright problem, I could upload another one. I've only used this one because it was already on Wikipedia. And finally, about the red links, actually this page has been created in order to improve Wikipedia's contents on Paris' skyscrapers. All towers above 150m/500feet will have very soon an article (translation from French Wikipedia articles). Metropolitan 03:09, 17 March 2006 (CET).

The panorama from La Défense has been replaced by a picture I've taken by myself. Metropolitan 05:04, 17 March 2006 (CET).

• Oppose due to the large number of red links. The criteria for Featured Lists states that lists must be composed of a large majority of blue links. I take on board the point about lists not being portals, and with the rise of the Portal namespace we might need to reconsider the criteria, but for the moment I can't support this. It is very good list in most other ways, and I would certainly recommend resubmitting once the reds are down below a third of the list. One small issue is that on my browser (IE6, 800x600), there is a massive white space before the first table, caused by all the pics down the right hand side. I can't think of a good way to rectify this without messing up other formatting - anyone have any ideas? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Support - some of the linked articles are not all that well written, but that's no reason not to support this. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. -M^ask 04:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• The article subject should be bolded, as per the WP:MoS.—thames 02:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Just a quick update to learn you that nearly all of the articles mentionned in the list have been created. Today, the list is composed of a large majority of blue links, something which fits with Wikipedia's criterias for Featured Lists. As for the Article subject, all of its appearances are bolded. Metropolitan 03:09, 17 March 2006 (CET).
• Comment I'd ask you not to strike through other users votes. It's one thing to request a revote or let people know you updated the links, but it is against policy to alter another users text on a discussion, and is considered vandalism. As such, I'm reverting the strikethroughs. Also, I'm keeping my Oppose due to excessive images... clear it down to just the panorama on the top and I'll support. -M^ask 02:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your concern, but I in fact did send a message to each person alerting them of what I did (including you). I will keep them unstruck, seeing as how that is a little rude, but please don't just assume that I would cross out votes; that's not something an experianced Wikipedian would do, right? And I do support your deciding to keep an oppose vote, too. → J@red ^talk+ _ubx  02:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, when I wrote that, you had not made the post to my talk page yet, and I jumped the gun in assuming that you wouldn't pop in... my bad :) just making sure you know for future reference, but feel free to smack me around a bit, this was just a case of a minor lack of knowledge on policy and a bunch of forgetting to Assume Good Faith on my part. -M^ask 03:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Images are good, I see no reason to oppose because there are 7 free pics. would oppose if there were none. Renata 10:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Both myself and Pheonix2 above would support only if the images are pared down... 7 is too much. Lets work for some middle ground? -M^ask 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support - the article is comprehensive, factually accurate, well-organised and has a majority of blue-links and some nice pics (especially the skyline view). Green Giant 23:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. - I just realized I haven't already mentioned it here, but references have been added to the page. Metropolitan 03:52, 2 April 2006 (CET).
• Comment:The future structures section lack measurements in feet. I would suggest swapping the two panoramas because the one buried at the bottom of the list is a stronger image technically. Rmhermen 06:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this, feet have been added to the list of future structures. As for the two panoramas, they've been switched by JP06035 and have been switched back by Hardouin. I personally support Hardouin's position in here as La Défense is the tallest skyscraper cluster in Paris, and as such certainly more significant than the 13th arr. towers. Metropolitan 13:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC).
    • That's a valid argument too. We could hope for a better quality picture of the same subject. Rmhermen 18:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - this has improved substantially since being listed. My only caveat is that the images and tables are not laid out particularly well for readers with narrow browser windows, but I'm not sure what can be done about that. (I would implore those who have opposed above to re-review: they could easily change their votes). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Before getting to my unique criticism, this article is indeed clear and concise and deserving of merit. Yet there is one major problem: Its namespace is not fitting to its content. This article is in fact an improved-upon version of its French Wiki counterpart called "Liste des plus hauts bâtiments d'Île de France" - there is good reason for the French article's title, as over 60% of the towers it (and this article) contains are outside of Paris. To be fitting and accurate, this article should be called "tallest structures in the Île-de-France" or, perhaps preferrably, "tallest structures in the Paris region." I won't even speculate on the reason for this 'bending' of an already fitting French namespace, but this inaccuracy fixed, you'd have my vote for sure. THEPROMENADER 15:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the french page has been copied from the english page. If you don't believe me check the History of both pages and you'll see the English page has been created earlier. As for the name, it is completely irrelevant. The article about the Tall buildings and structures in London is also made of a high proportion of towers being built outside the city of London, including its three tallest towers. Is this a reason decent enough to consider renaming it "Tall buildings and structures in the Greater London" ? Let me doubt about this. 100% of towers mentionned in this list are located in the heart of the Paris urban area : either in the city proper or in its inner suburbs. Furthermore, the district and the municipality of each single building are mentionned in the list. As such, there's absolutely no issue in the factual accuracy of this article. I wouldn't see any reason to rename it as "tall structures in Ile-de-France" oustide of course if it's about making the article less visible as the Ile-de-France region is a lot less known than Paris. Metropolitan 15:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected for the 'what from where' of this article - sorry for that oversight. Still, the naming difference between these remain, and again, the London comparison is inapplicable here - anything within "Greater London" can still generally be called "London" - and this even in official sites - but around Paris there exists no "Greater Paris" entity or name of any sort. The closest thing in common use and references you'll be able to find is the "Paris Region" (région Parisienne or generally IDF) - for this I think using "Paris region" for the article namespace will make it 100% descriptive of what the article contains yet remain 100% recognisable to all. Saying simply "in Paris" is unnecessarily inaccurate and the fact that a reader will 'get it' only after reading the article is an unnecessary added extra step, and this I think will reflect on the article quality. You do get my point I'm sure. It's up to you though; I won't be bothering you (all) any more on this matter. THEPROMENADER 17:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be complaining that La Défense is not in Paris. While technically accurate, our article on La Défense actually says that is "one of Paris' major central business districts"! Most English people would, I think, be surprised if you said that La Défense was not in Paris. The situation is similar to Canary Wharf, which is in Inner London but not in the City of London (although London has long ceased to be synonymous with the City of London). I would suggest that the concern could be satisfied by making the scope of the list a little clearer in the lead section. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Not complaining, noting. Because something is dependant upon/connected to/serving the city doesn't mean it is the city. Paris' borders and naming conventions are very clear, commonly known and well-documented. I think the only exception to this would be on the occasion that one foreigner, in a foreign land, would explain to another the location of a near-Paris place: here he would say 'in Paris'. I'm not sure you want this article to cater to that particular poiint of view, but that's up to you. THEPROMENADER 21:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - per ALoan. Afonso Silva 20:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)