Talk:List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Notes

[1] ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Canceled skyscrapers and Demolished buildings sections

I have removed or integrated the sections "Canceled skyscrapers" and "Demolished buildings" as they are not sections found on "List of tallest buildings in x city" pages. All of the featured list of this style are found at [[2]] and none of them have said sections. I have kept the layout inline with the most liberal of the FL's, List of tallest buildings in Boston where under construction and proposed structures are still listed. Early in this entry it is stated that for the purposes of this list the cut off is 300'. Buildings under that height are not notable enough for this list. I picked 20 stories for ones that don't yet have a height enumerated, since that seems to be the cut off in the main list of tallest buildings. To keep this as a featured list we need to rigorously defend the structure of the page and only include items that fit the description. --Found5dollar (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

also, as an FYI, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists contains the rules and layout for tallest building list as have been decided upon by consensus and review. Neither canceled or demolished sections are included in the FL criteria for tallest building lists, and the 300' cut off is explained there as well.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I've spent about as much time as can be demanded searching for the consensus that states Canceled or Never Builts were forbidden. Can't find any. I do appreciate the interest and work on this article however the appearance of some featured list articles don't justify the exclusion of additional encyclopedic & RSed data for this article. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It explicitly states here how a list of tallest buildings should be organized. The sections should be 1)Tallest buildings 2)Tallest under construction, approved or proposed 3)Timeline of tallest buildings 4)References 5)External links. The same page states 2 sections later that a "Tallest destroyed" section is only applicable in cities "that have experienced urban decay or terrorist attacks." Pittsburgh has not seen either of these in terms of its tall buildings. The only 2 building that have been demolished in Pittsburgh that are over 300' are already listed in the "Timeline of tallest buildings" section. There is no need to repeat the same information twice. If you feel that the template for how a "list of tallest buildings" is modeled should be changed to include "canceled skyscrapers" and "tallest destroyed" for much shorter buildings or other reasons, you can bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists, but as the standards stand, those sections do not belong on this article.--Found5dollar (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I will remind Found5dollar of WP:3RR also instructive is that the list you link to does not forbid any additional information/list from being added to an encyclopedic article and seems to contradict your earlier claim that Pittsburgh unlike a Jacksonville, Florida should not list low rises below 300 feet, a big city will naturally have more encyclopedic classifications to list unless we can include the heights of the smaller cities in the Pittsburgh article. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 23:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Its obvious we both want what is best for this article, but unfortunately the information you are dead set on including does not fit in the parameters of what Wikiproject Skyscrapers had come to a consensus on and outlined. I have posted there asking for further input.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I have also asked for comment from Raime as they got this page past FLC.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Since neither of those panned out i asked for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third opinion--Found5dollar (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

In terms of your last comments, The only optional sections it allows for are "Tallest buildings by pinnacle height," "Tallest building by borough / neighborhood / region," and "Tallest destroyed." No ther sections are mentioned Even the New York City list does not include "canceled skyscrapers." These are the only sections called for beyond the main ones I have listed before. Pittsburgh has a medium sized skyline, Jacksonville, Fl a small one. Jacksonville has 9 buildings over 300', Pittsburgh has 29. Ever since this page was created editors have agreed that Pittsburgh is medium sized and the 300' cut off is appropriate. More information does not make the article more encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a depository for any and all information, we only keep what is pertinent and notable.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad we agree that Pittsburgh is unlike the Jacksonvilles of the world, to me: according to what editors may additionally contribute & to consensus on heights.

I've noticed reliable sources (Emporis etc.) that the consensus of 'tallest' articles feature as the "General Reference" also list "unbuilts"/"canceled". Emporis is great on what is encyclopedically important, especially since those wikipedia templates don't forbid additional data & can't anticipate every possible exception that may occur with diverse applications. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Emporis is exhaustive, Wikipedia is encyclopedic. It is obvious we have different views and neither of us is going to convince the other, I am just going to wait for a third opinion as we are just talking in circles.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I saw this listed at 3O and want to throw something into the discussion mix without actually giving a 3O. I've left it listed at 3O in case someone else cares to do so. The arguments based upon what other articles do and what some WikiProject says are not controlling. As to the "other articles" argument, it is a well-established wiki-principle that every article stands on its own except to the degree that material must be included or excluded by policy or guidelines (see the discussion at OTHERSTUFF for some background and links on that principle). That brings us to the WikiProject issue. The CONLIMITED section of the Consensus policy says that WikiProjects cannot set rules for articles: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." The PROJPAGE section of the WikiProject Council guideline fleshes this out:

However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several members of a project is no more binding on editors than an advice page written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional {{essay}}.

None of that is to say that those two sources aren't good sources for reasoning to be used in this discussion, it's just to say that they're not in any sense or to any degree binding on what should happen in this article. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify and make sure we are discussion the same things, it seems we are at an impasse on 3 points:
1) the 300' minimum for inclusion on this page
2) weather a list of canceled skyscrapers should be in this article
3) weather the list of demolished buildings warrants inclusion. (this may hinge on the 300' minimum as the only 2 buildings above that height are already mentioned in the timeline of tallest buildings and noted as demolished)

Marketdiamond, could you please clarify your position on the first of these. Do you think that 300' is an inappropriate cut off height? If so, what height do you suggest? I just can't seem to find an if you have stated an alternative to, or just an opposition to, the height currently in the article.--Found5dollar (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm for the article's current organization. The <300 ft was pointing out that the wikipedia template seems fungible/flexible (read above).also, might be beneficial to keep things brief & not trying to re-phrase what each other has said, since all is here to be read just the way we wrote it :-) ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 09:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you agree with the 300'limit I have removed structures under that mark. enumerating our diferences is a way to try to understand each other and figure out a way beyond the impasse we have. Now since there are only 2 buildings in the "Tallest Destroyed" section and they are already listed in other sections as being destroyed, do you agree this information is redundant?--Found5dollar (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The section is not redundant irregardless of the data being so. I disagree with your edits in the last 24 hrs but I can understand them, I'll see if I can get some more RSs on Penn Park & I'll see if there is some consensus on retroactively (1950s/60s) applying "Jacksonville" standards to destroyed/canceled. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do you feel the section is not redundant? The same information is found literally 4 lines above this.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

As alluded to above, the section is not redundant, there are several readers that are looking to link down to only the demolished 'scrapers, also consider mobile devices (showing only section headers), users of screen readers & other accessibility needs not to mention hyperlinking both inside & outside of wikipedia to directly that section. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 17:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Point by point rebuttal.

• "there are several readers that are looking to link down to only the demolished 'scrapers" This is impossible to prove, but if people were coming to this page only to find the tallest demolished buildings then the page would be called "list of destroyed buildings in Pittsburgh." As it stand the page is about the tallest buildings first. demolished buildings is cursory information that is mentioned within the article where it is appropriate.
• "consider mobile devices" the easiest solution would not be to have a section for it, but to instead include that 2 demolished buildings were over 300' in the header. This way the information is there without having to click at all on a section header.
• "users of screen readers & other accessibility needs" screen readers would have already read in the chronology that the 2 buildings had been demolished before it gets to this section.
• "not to mention hyper linking both inside & outside of Wikipedia to directly that section." if there was another building over 300' that had never been one of the tallest buildings in Pittsburgh I would understand this argument, but you could just link to the timeline and it would work the exact same way. It list all of the buildings demolished over 300'.
  

My suggestion to try to reach a compromise is to write in the header something along the lines of "Pittsburgh had two buildings over 300' demolished, the First National Bank Building, and the Farmers Bank Building Building." and remove the "Tallest destroyed" section.--Found5dollar (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I commend you on your passion for this article but you still haven't resolved the concern(s)-just given further explanation, to me more info in the intro is not a substitute for hyperlinking/accessiblity/mobile devices. As mentioned above I'm not convinced that the 'scrapers you removed should not go back on (the whole concern about retroactively being considered among the Jacksonvilles). A discussion on those deletions would've been interesting (should retroactivity should end in 1980 or 1960 etc.) I didn't see the need to extend that discussion a few days ago but solving it one way makes a suggested section delete moot. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I find it incredibly hard to follow what you are saying most of the time, please reread before you click "save page" as you are just continuously talking in loops and generalities. I gave you specific reasons why the section "tallest destroyed" is redundant, and you just reply back with basically "no". please explain what parts of "hyperlinking/accessiblity/mobile" that my solution does not address. In terms of certain sections having different standards please explain why beyond the "that's what I think" reasoning you have given previously. Proof from other articles, a wiki guideline, something from the FLC page that alludes to it, anything, because just stating what you want with no policy or fact backing anything up is not convincing.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. If you were truly worried about the accessibility of this page than you would have noticed that not a single image on it has Alt text. That is a much grander sin, and actually listed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility, where "separating out all information into different headings so that people on cellphones can get to it faster" is not.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

1st you're misquoting me again (I have attempted not to make an issue of that but it is getting on my nerves some & my last 2 posts answers all your questions on what your solution does not address, it seems this is just a stark difference of views among us & since there seems to be some confusion on my replies I want to make it clear that the points I made above are serious, well thought out & to me have no real alternative solution other than to leave the section in). 2nd you seem to be making this more complicated then necessary, to me it boils down to a few simple concerns worth a sentence or two, apologies if you're reading looping into my responses but some of this is an attempt to filter a lot of misquotes/splitting of my single point into multiple debate style talking point rebuttals/false assumptions & mistaking my very clear examples of proof by instead thinking they are facts that I haven't somehow justified, I bit my tongue earlier on some of this and I would prefer just sticking to the one or two points of contention instead of reading longer summaries of shorter summaries of summaries. 3rd if I wished to answer you with "no" you'd have your recent deletions reverted instead of being considered & an attempt to discuss/research re-adding them, finally thank you for the suggestion on accessibility I'll see if I can assist there & please reply to my concern that I pose for a 3rd time, retroactively the city's skyline did have prominent <300 footers because at one time we had less of a skyline than the current Jacksonvilles, those <300 'scrapers should be readded to the destroyed list by the same logic that the courthouse was the most prominent at one time in the city and thus has a place in an article where by 2014 standards it is massively out of place. The point of view I see with the courthouse being on this page is that if you looked at the city in 1890 it would appear that it was among the tallest (yes it was the tallest but from some vantage points it would simply appear as among the tallest). If you looked at the city in 1960 wouldn't the Carlton House type structures also make a 'Jacksonville-standard' impression? A discussion like this might be better for the skyscraper project and I can see a few holes in it but it is something I feel should be discussed in more detail. P.S. I do read all my posts before hitting save and although I will attempt to be more clear please don't assume things, BTW "weather" is something that threw me for a loop, 'whether' is what you meant repeatedly but that was 2 of your posts ago & I'd really rather just keep this as simple & focused as possible. :-) ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I missed your request for comment on my talk page, Found5dollar - I haven't been active on Wikipedia over the past year. But to chime in - I definitely agree that the "Canceled Skyscrapers" section should be removed. I figured that I'd post it here for discussion first before actually removing the information given that the conversation above took place several months ago. There is no precedent for a "Canceled Skyscrapers" in any other tallest building lists, but most importantly the section should be removed because it is unencyclopedic and fails several WP:FL standards. For one, the buildings listed are not notable (none of them have articles), and there is no height information for any of the 6 structures (and a building's height is what warrants its inclusion). In addition, most of the information listed - square footage and building cost, for example - is well beyond the scope of the list. Finally, the formatting is inconsistent with the rest of the list and the references are all improperly formatted. Buildings that were canceled in the 80s and early 90s are unencyclopedic - they are appropriate for a database like Emporis, but not a comprehensive listing of current and future Pittsbirgh skyscrapers.

I do, however, think that the "Tallest destroyed" list merits inclusion; the buildings meet the height cutoff, and there is precedent for a "Tallest destroyed" section being in articles (see List of tallest buildings in New York City). Cheers, Rai•me 14:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Since it has been 2 weeks without any opposition, i will remove the section.Found5dollar (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent Overhaul

To save time for myself, I won't go into any detail just yet, I know this was a fairly substantial revision, so please feel free to place any questions or requests for further improvement below. (please ping on reply)

𝒬𝔔 23:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Please allow a few days for replies, I can usually respond within the week, thank you.