Talk:List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon/Archive 1

Archive 1

COI disclosure

I have performed paid work for twelve|west’s (formerly 12th and Washington) management and development company. My edits to this page present possible conflict of interest, but I insist I have been fair, neutral and factual. —Parhamr (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked at your edits and I don't see any problem. Thanks for your abundance of caution. I don't know how to get the pipe into the name though... Katr67 (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Images

I've added image links where I was able to find pics in Wikipedia or commons. If anyone knows of any others, please add. Though I'm not sure if where I put the link is the best spot, maybe a new column for the link? Aboutmovies (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I really like the current placement. It certainly adds to the list, and prevents the "column crunching" that adding a new column might involve. Cheers, Rai•me 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be the opposition, but I do not agree to the addition of the image link. I believe that the only images in this list should be in the lead or along the side. Any additional information (including, but not limited to, architects, owners, use, cost, or information not related to the height) should be put on the building's article. What I am saying is that if someone wants to see what the building looks like, they can select the link to the building's article. While there they may also learn some other information and even add to or correct the article. A discussion about including the architect in these lists (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers#Inclusion of building architects in tallest building lists) concluded with consensus that they should be kept on the building's article. I feel that these images are the same. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no they cannot always be included in the articles, as not all have articles, thus the point of including a link to the image. But for consistency, all have been added where there is an existing picture. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, Leitmanp. I don't really think that images can be compared with the exclusion or architects; the problem with that was that a building's architect isn't related directly to its height. But, as we already include images in the lists, the same is not true for building depictions; since we include some images, there seems to be consensus that the depictions are at least "somewhat" related to building height. The problem with the current situation is that the image link is in the Notes column, which really should be reserved for information completely relevant to building height and references. An addition of a separate image column would be the best for this, but then we would have to deal with the bigger problem of "Column crunching"... Perhaps articles are the best places to keep images. I guess I am undecided on this issue. Cheers, Rai•me 04:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Aboutmovies, I see your point. Your idea for including the images in these lists is great. By looking at List of tallest buildings in Singapore, you can see that having an image for almost every entry is just too much. I do think that having a link to the image is smart, but I still do not think it should be included. I believe that if a building does not have an article, chances are (most of the time, but not always) that the building is not notable enough to even include an image. But of course, this can only be done on a building-by-building basis.

Raime, do you think we should open a discussion about including images in tallest buildings lists at WikiProject Skyscrapers' talk page? This way, we would be able to see what more people think about the issue and maybe even come up with an alternative method of including images. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I also think that images of the buildings are best left in the individual building articles for the reasons that Raime pointed out. VerruckteDan (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the new standard for building FLs seems to be to add images to a separate image column (see List of tallest buildings in San Diego, List of tallest buildings in Oklahoma City, List of tallest buildings in New York City), so I went ahead and created one for this list. Cheers, Rai•me 03:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Heights

After researching to write the Umpqua Bank Plaza article, I was wondering if anyone has a better source than Emporis for height? One newspaper had the height for the building as 204 feet (62 m) (though they were going off someone's word and the number may have been transposed and they said One Main Place was 240 feet (73 m)), while the Skyscraper folks list it at 240 feet (73 m), and Emporis at 263 feet (80 m). Using Google Earth and calculating the elevation difference between the roof and ground is about 250 feet (76 m). Are there any good sources out there people know of? Aboutmovies (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a barometer?  :-) —EncMstr (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I Think I may have a copy of a barometer, but maybe I should get out my tape measure, find my old protractor, and A²+B²=C² and head downtown. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think Ladd Tower should be on the tallest buildings list as it is listed at 260 feet on the wikipedia page devoted to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.39.103.27 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Ladd Tower's height is actually 240'Masterscraper (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Under Construction section needs to be updated

Now that it's 2009, the U/C section may need to be updated. The section contains one building entry whose estimated completion year is 2008 and two whose ECYs are 2009. -Occhanikov (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)