Talk:List of tallest buildings in Toronto

message: This four-year featured list no longer meets the updated featured list requirements. Specific comments:
* Per WP:REPEATLINK, the image captions should have items linked again if possible, in this case, "CNN Tower" should be linked in the lede image caption
* Unlink "Canada" per WP:OVERLINK
* Same goes for "skyscrapers"
* Add alt text to the images per MOS:IMAGES
* Words like "currently" are generally to be avoided per WP:RELTIME
* Same goes for "recent"
* The article's prose is a mess and chunky, as well its paragraph style, needs copy-editing
* Any timeline image of the city?
* Tables don't meet WP:ACCESS, add scope cols and rows to ensure they do
* Tables don't meet WP:DTT, add table captions to ensure they do
* Reference formatting errors
* External link names are incorrect
TBrandley 04:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ways for this article to maintain its status as Featured List 

message: This list is missing INDX, another huge skyscraper going up in the financial district.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.83.211 (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable source please.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 17:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  INDX under construction 

message: Maybe a dumb question, given that I know part of the answer (they're not fully inhabitable from the top-down), but wouldn't St. James Cathedral (93 metres tall, spire completed in 1874) and then Old City Hall (104 metres tall, completed 1899) have been the tallest buildings of their time—with Old City Hall's reign on top extending all the way to 1929?Dstopping (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why aren't Old City Hall and St. James Cathedral on the list of tallest historical buildings? 

message: The lead reads as if it were last updated last year.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead may need updating 

message: The following sentence in this article will need to be updated: 
"The tallest building under construction is Aura, which will rise to a height of 272 m (892 ft) and will become the tallest primarily residential building in North America."
The "432 Park Avenue" building under construction in New York, which will have a height of 426 m (1,396 ft) will be the tallest residential building in North America upon its completion in 2015. "North America" in the above sentence should then be changed to "Canada". Bunkyray5 (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I have added a template at the top of the article.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to "Aura" building will need updating 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of tallest bridges in the world which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 13:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: I am wondering if there should even be a proposed tallest buildings list. I saw many of these lists from older "tallest buildings" articles, and the vast majority of all those buildings listed were never built. They were pure fantasy/speculation. But more appropriately, it goes against the wikipedia policy of crystal balling WP:CRYSTAL, which is to predict future events. An encyclopedia should contain real buildings, not potential buildings. More to the point: an article called "List of tallest buildings in Toronto" should really only list buildings, not ideas of buildings. What are your thoughts? Mattximus (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If there has been progress, such as the site purchased for the proposed building, that's more than pure fantasy. If you have an address, the owner of that real estate is involved in the plan, and it is published in reliable sources, that's something you can list. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it is not "proposed", it would be under construction. Which is better, but even then does not match the title which is "tallest buildings in Toronto", not tallest future buildings in Toronto. Mattximus (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed? 

message: I think this section runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL in that it is entirely speculative. Many of these buildings will not be built, or built in some other form. The purpose of this policy is to emphasize that Wikipedia is meant as an encyclopedia of what is, not what might be. Also sourcing is a huge issue. There is one citation for the whole table, but it contains different information than what is in the table! The citation says, for example, the HUB is going to be 311m , however the table says 274m. Who know, since it is speculative at best anyway. I suggest this whole section be removed and we focus on the title of the page, listing only the tallest buildings in Toronto, not speculative buildings that may one day become one of the tallest buildings in Toronto. Mattximus (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with removal. The ones under "Approved" should also only be there with sources, and ones with actual construction start dates. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with that as well. Mattximus (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I must concur. Much of the proposed section constitutes original research, nothing more than some rumours on Twitter, Reddit, or UrbanToronto.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Here is the reference for the approved and proposed section. It comes from the same source as the under construction and completed sections.   Thus adding list back. Mercenary2k (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on there, we had a consensus for removing the list as it constitutes either WP:CRYSTAL or WP:OR, so if you want to add it back please discuss here. Also the list should be removed as is because there is no distinction between approved and proposed. Proposed is definitely not encyclopedic because this is a list of tallest buildings, not a list of what might be a tall building some unknown time in the future, maybe. Mattximus (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  That consensus was predicated on the notion that the information was inaccurate. I have found accurate information. What exactly is the issue of including it if everything is cited and properly refenced from a reputable source? I really dont understand your oppostion to including that list. Approved buildings have a year beside them which shows when they will be finished. Proposed are buildings which don't have a year. Every other "List of Tallest Buildings in X" has a propsed and apporved section. Not sure what your opposition is to include it here. Either give me a proper reason for not including it or I am adding it back. Here are two Featured Articles which includes an Approved and Proposed sections. List of tallest buildings in Chicago and List of tallest buildings in New York City. So I dont believe your opposition has any merit. Mercenary2k (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that speculation is not appropriate for wikipedia. You are speculating that buildings might be completed at some undefined point in the future, which isn't encyclopedic and runs afoul of 2 wikipedia policies (Original Research and Crystal Balling). Also I just clicked on the first two featured "list of tallest buildings" and neither have speculative "proposed or approved" lists: List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque, List of tallest buildings in Atlanta, so they definitely don't "all have this". If you want to go against the consensus, you should address the concerns of WP:CRYSTAL especially. Mattximus (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  But List of tallest buildings in Chicago and List of tallest buildings in New York City do have a proposed and approved section. As does the majority of all the list of tallest buildings in X city. Albuquerque and Atlanta are smaller cities and maybe they dont have the type of development going on to justify a proposed or approved section. Toronto is in the league of Chicago, New York, Melbourne, Miami and all of these articles including the two featured ones of New York and Chicago have an approved and proposed section. Mercenary2k (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like using WP:OTHERSTUFF because of the lack of consistency it causes and lazy editing habits, so therefore, to get all of these similar pages on the same track, perhaps a wider discussion at WP:SKY is necessary. I'm leaning towards non-inclusion here as, even with the source given, there is no hard evidence that these proposed buildings will ever be built, and is therefore not very encyclopedic. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I also lean towards removal, and I will propose these sections be removed from any other list that has them. I think if the buildings are under construction (with a proper citation), then that could be included since it is a "real thing". We really shouldn't be including non-buildings (or potential buildings) in a list of tallest buildings. Mattximus (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

text: I propose to transfer this article from the list of high-rise buildings to a description of interesting concepts in architecture. University building OCAD 100 McCaul Street. I think its architecture is futuristic enough to write about it.Leonid Kotvitsky 73 year (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

text: I proposed what Vaselineeeee said on the main project page found here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Skyscrapers#Approved/Proposed_Section. Pinging all contributers here to see if they want to voice their support/opposition to the proposition. User talk:Vaselineeeeeeee, User talk:Mercenary2k, User talk:Johnny Au Mattximus (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So it looks like the discussion reached a compromise. Approved/proposed buildings may be included but only if they have significant citations (which means more than just a skyscraper indexing blog). Mattximus (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose getting rid of "proposed" section 

message: I just want to here others opinions on having a "potential total future" column for comparison of other Western cities. To me this is very speculative an runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. Also why compare Toronto to some American cities and an Australian one? What is the logic behind the "Western" category? Why have this comparison at all when it could be a single sentence in the lead? Mattximus (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Comparisons with other cities belong in the lead as a single sentence and remove the total future section as well, as it constitutes original research at best.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 12:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Comparison among Western cities is indeed accurate as it places where Toronto ranks among the Western World. Asia and Middle East has pulled far ahead so comparing where Toronto ranks in terms of construction, speed and scale of building is indeed accurate. Those 5 cities are the top cities in the Western World in terms of skyscrapers. And all the information is accurately cited and referenced from a reputable source. Mercenary2k (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't address the concern, in that having a "potential total future" section is speculation, and wikipedia has rules against original research and "crystal balling". Remember this is a list of tallest buildings, not a list of potential tall buildings that might one day be built. Also why did you include Australia in your definition of "West"? Why not Tokyo? It's just as "west" as Australia. Culturally Western too... it just seems so arbitrary. Mattximus (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this article Western world, the western world includes Canada, USA, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Potential future total is speculation but its backed by cited and referenced data from the most reputable source out there. If certain projects are no longer proposed then the list will be updated and removed. And the main list only lists the constructed buildings. This is just additional information of what is in the pipeline and useful for people to understand in what direction Toronto is trending vs other cities.Mercenary2k (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed the total future count after reading the Crystal Ball section. I don't agree with it but I did to settle the debate. If people want to total what the future looks like they can add up the numbers themselves. Mercenary2k (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Original research does not belong on Wikipedia. Anyone can add up the figures using Wikipedia, but they cannot be added to Wikipedia. They can be added to another wiki though and there are many other wikis.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Total Future section? 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Tallest toronto. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 25#Tallest toronto until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Regards, SONIC678 16:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tallest toronto" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]