Talk:One North LaSalle

message: I have cited sources saying that by certain definitions this was the tallest.  The sources are WP:V and WP:RS.  User:Dralwik has removed these claims and I have requested his explanation about his understanding of alternate definitions.  I am inclined to again revert his changes if he does not somehow explain his understanding of alternate defintions in a way that would supercede these references.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  00:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am having a problem with your logic in this statement. It seems to me you refuse to accept alternate definitions because of your own opinion.  Is there another reason why you don't acknowledge alternate definitions?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  00:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at this diagram, the only way that 1NLS was the tallest in Chicago is if the statue and pyramidal top of the BOT is removed, the steeple off the Temple Building, the pyramidal top of the Pittsfield Building, and the mansard roof of the Civic Opera Building are all removed. Also, the World Almanac and Emporis list this building below the ones above. Even if you go by the definition of the building's roof as the top, the most restrictive definition that places this building the highest, this building ranks fifth upon completion. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat  My Great Project 01:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the point of the claim is that some definitions of tallest exclude these.  Did you read the text in the two citations claiming this was the tallest.  We could put a statement of what is being excluded to achieve the claim.  That would be encyclopedic.  I think we should put back the claim and explain all the exclusions necessary to make it.  It is not up to us as editors to determine the validity of such exclusions. We should not the claim and describe the exclusions.  What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  01:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to that proposal, Tony. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat  My Great Project 01:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to reedit it, but then I changed the date to 1964 and don't quite know how to interpret http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?31686394 Feel free to take a stab at it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  02:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You phrased the revision perfectly. For the diagram, simply type in 1934 for the maximum year, hit the gray search button below the year boxes, and then hit the "Diagram URL" link at the top-left corner. The 1934 diagram is here. SkyscraperPage's diagrams can be a fascinating tool for seeing how a city's skyline changes over time. Thank you, --- Dralwik|Have a Chat  My Great Project 14:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tallest debate 

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