Talk:List of tallest buildings in Australia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Criterion

So we've just said that officially buildings are measured to the tops of their spires and that the worlds tallest buildings have spires.... So why does this list exclude spires? The only reason I can think of is that someone doesn't like the way the list looks when spires are included. If you can't show me a better reason than that I will be changing this list. 62.254.168.102 08:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not add a list of heights to spire instead of just overwriting this one? Height to roof is a perfectly good metric and generally aligns better with the sense of 'visual' tallness than a list to spire does, as the infamous brawl between the Sears Tower and the Petronas Towers shows. And if we do use spires are we talking height to pinnacle or to highest structural/architectural element? You'll have to be consistent. - ҉Randwicked҉ 09:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the other lists on wikipedia, like List of skyscrapers (which this links to and is linked from) use architectural detail, and consistancy is a good thing. Not only that, it is a good medium between including everything, and just roof heights. Roof height is used as an alternative measurement (sometimes by people trying to keep their favourite building at the top; "Alternative lists of high buildings are maintained by nongovernmental US organization Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. These lists, first defined and compiled in 1996 in order to keep Petronas Towers from topping Sears Tower, rank buildings in four categories"). And even if you use them, they still list Architectural as the first.Iorek85 06:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't see the point of an unofficial list. The list of Australia's tallest buildings should be according to the official measurements. --WikiCats 10:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no 'official' metric for measuring tall buildings. The CTBUH's criteria are as POV as the GAWC's Alpha-Beta-Gamma world city rankings (and you can blame me for clogging up the wikipedia with those). I assembled this list to roof level because I think that metric is fairer, but I can see no problem with listing both figures here. The source has all three (antenna, spire, roof). - ҉Randwicked҉ 12:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is your reference [1]. It says "Q1 tower is now the World's tallest residential tower". What is the point of this unofficial list? --WikiCats 12:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of being thought facetious I'm going to say "to list things?" I'm not sure I understand your objection though. Any collection of figures on building heights is going to be unofficial because there is no official list. - ҉Randwicked҉

You ought to do something with this article because at the moment it is a candidate for speedy deletion. --WikiCats 12:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. - ҉Randwicked҉

Good come back. This is the situation. You can't hijack the Tallest buildings in Australia article and not put Q1 at the top. According to your reference and this article World's tallest structures Q1 is Australia's tallest building. --WikiCats 12:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Q1 is only the tallest building to spire, not to roof or pinnacle. Why don't you add the figures to spire in another column instead of getting needlessly confrontational? I've suggested this three times now. - ҉Randwicked҉ 13:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Original research

This article bears no relationship to the references.[2] --WikiCats 14:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous. You just added that reference. Heights to roof can be obtained from the skyscraperpage.com search page. - ҉Randwicked҉ 14:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the list? --WikiCats 14:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the first ref to a deep link directly to the diagram. - ҉Randwicked҉ 03:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC) This is your reference when listed by Official height. [3] --WikiCats 10:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. Since this is an unofficial list it is original research. As such it is breaking two of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies. As an experienced editor you should know this. --WikiCats 09:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's neither unverifiable nor original research. The original order and listing is taken directly from skyscraperpage.com. - ҉Randwicked҉ 11:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm remoiving the original research warning template. For me, it's clearly not original research. I can't see how anyone can claim it is.--Iorek85 04:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The list needs to match the reference: Emporis: Australia's tallest buildings --WikiCats 07:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

THe primary reference, and the one that I used, is skyscraperpage! - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 10:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source because that page can be made to put buildings in any order. For example: SkyscraperPage - Order by Official height --WikiCats 11:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The figures themselves are reliable. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 13:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to be able to cite a source. Or else it original research. --WikiCats 13:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

He did. And it is reliable! That site is used as a reference on many of the skyscraper pages, like List of Skyscrapers. I'm really not following how you think asking a database to punch out its data in a particular order is original research. It's not like he went around Australia measuring them himself. --Iorek85 23:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It is only used as reference for drawings of skyscrapers. You can't set up the search criteria so that it comes up with a list that suits you and call that a reliable source. --WikiCats 04:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorting the data doesn't change it. The data is just as reliable, and while I don't agree with the height he's selected (I think it should use architechtural height), it's still a reliable source. And even if it's not, it's a bad source, not original research. I think it'd be nice if we could come up with some consensus without resorting to a mediation, especially on such a small issue.--Iorek85 07:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Height measurement of buildings to solve the spire/pinnacle issue.

What I believe is a fair concept in evaluating the height of a structure is to measure all buildings to roof height, and only including the spire/pinnacle/mast or architectural feature height if it was placed atop the structure at the time of construction of the building. So hence, Q1 Tower would retain its 322.5m height, as the spire was placed atop the building as part of its initial construction phase. To use as an example, lets say if Eureka Tower were to construct its 50m communications mast, the height should not be counted, as it is placed AFTER the tower was completed, and thus only remain 297m tall, not 347m.

I think this is logically fair, as buildings should be addressed for what they were when initially built, and not as they are after future add-ons. This however should be exempted in one case only, that being if a building has undergone a radical refurbishment or transformation that completely alters its visual image, at which point any further visual enhancements, such as a spire or mast would then be counted.

To solve a much debated topic, I believe the Petronas Twin towers (at its time, were the tallest building(s) in the world standing at 452m, and not the Sears Tower who stands at 442m (initial construction height), as the spires were constructed initially alongside the towers completion, unlike the Sears Tower, who had its antennae constructed in 1982 which brought the towers height to 527m.

On an unofficial note, another category can be reserved for a buildings height, which should be evaluated by ground to pinnacle height - which would award the title of worlds tallest structure (not building) to CN Tower, Toronto at 553m, and then followed by Sears Tower, Chicago at 527m. (Unless I have forgotten to take into account of another building that has a structural tip higher than these two).

Hope this can contribute to solving any problems arisen with structural debates concerning a buildings height.

Architectural height includes built-in spires and features that are part of the building, but excludes telecommunication masts, so if Eureka were to complete a mast, it still wouldn't count anyway. I get where you're going, but I don't think it particularily matters when the spire i added, just what the spire is. Iorek85 00:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sortable list

It looks good, and is handy for sorting by city and floor level, but giving buildings of different heights the same ranking is just wrong. They are blanked because they will, when completed, fill the spots taken in between (Vision, for instance, will be the third tallest building when completed, not the second). Giving them the same (or any ranking) is misleading. Is it possible to only have some columns sortable? Iorek85 09:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What about adding a coordinates column, to use {{coord}}? That would allow all the towers to be mapped (see for instance, the coordinates references on Tame Valley Canal). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorted

That should fix everything. Buildings are now listed by architechtural height, and I've put the references used at the bottom of the list so there's no accusations of original research. I do solemnly swear I did not go around and measure the buildings myself. There is a bit of a hole with the proposed buildings, though - I don't know much about proposed buildings in other cities. I'd also like to ask that proposed structures should only be ones currently marketed or planned for construction. --Iorek85 02:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I support the changes. --WikiCats 12:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to support the consensus. :) - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 13:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool. :) --Iorek85 23:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. --WikiCats 02:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Still very confusing. Why not a column for both roof height, and another for pinnacle, and allow sorting by either? 124.150.70.114 (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing Buildings

More Proposed buildings need to be added to this list. Here's some;

Empire Square, Brisbane, 248m
Prima on Southbank, Melbourne, 223m
33 Bligh st., Sydney, 188m
Swan Panorama 1&2, Perth, 207m & 195m
549 Queen St., Brisbane, 196m
John Boyd Tower, Sydney, 188m
386 Little Collins St., Melbourne, 200m
- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by User:124.180.160.127

The only info I could get on Empire Square said it wasn't approved by council yet, so I'll wait for that before adding it. Prima seems to be approved, according to emporis, but there's no website or council notice for it, or a completion date, and the only articles on it are years old. 33 Bligh st has been approved, but there is no website for it, and the notice says they will wait for pre commitment before going ahead. Can't find anything except a skyscraper page comment on Swan. Nothing at all on 549 Queen Street, John Boyd Tower or 386 Little Collins street. But thanks for letting us know, and hopefully when they are confirmed to be going ahead, we can add them in. Iorek85 05:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

They can be added only once construction commences. MyFavco (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of buildings which have not yet been built

I've just reverted the article to comment out all buildings which have not yet been built, for reasons including:

It gives undue prominence to buildings that do not currently exist, versus real buildings that do exist. It appears to reflect a pro-Queensland bias. Not all of these buildings will necessarily be built, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. What we have currently, which is a comparison of future Queensland buildings versus existing Australian buildings, is unencyclopedic and constitutes listcruft.

I'm sure Queensland will some day feature prominently and deservedly in this list, but until then you are just going to have to be patient. Easel3 07:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What? The proposed buildings have been listed for a while now. It's not because of a 'pro Queensland bias', and while wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, allotting spaces to buildings that have been approved or are under construction is perfectly fine. It is not a listing of future Queensland buildings versus existing Australian buildings; it is a listing of approved or under construction buildings that will fit in the top 25. If you know of any in NSW (which apparently can't happen because of Sydneys planning code) or Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Northern Territory or Tasmania, that will be in the top 25, please, list them. Unless you can come up with a more logical reason than a phantom bias, then I'll revert it back. Iorek 08:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether the inclusion of proposed buildings in this list is longstanding or not, it is not appropriate. I'm not backing away from the statement that the article appears to reflect a pro-Queensland bias. That's not to accuse other editors of deliberate bias - you may simply have been adding all the proposed buildings you were aware of. However, to a neutral observer, the list certainly does look like someone has tried to boost Queensland's low number of buildings in the list by drawing undue attention to buildings there that are as yet unbuilt. This makes the whole article appear less reliable. Yes, there are indeed proposed buildings in Melbourne which may make the top 25; at least one is approved according to Emporis. But I won't add it to the current list because it would only make the problem with this article worse.

My most important point, which you have ignored, is that the list gives undue prominence to unbuilt structures. This is a neutrality issue. Whether they are given a ranking or not, the unbuilt buildings in the list are featured as prominently on the page as actual built structures. A building that has not yet been built does not deserve to be featured as prominently in the list as an existing building. If a person is looking for information on the tallest buildings in Australia, they do not want to find the only such list on Wikipedia choked with buildings that might be among Australia's tallest if and when they are built in three or four years time. A list containing "approved or under construction buildings that will fit into the top 25" at some future point a few years from now is not the List of tallest buildings in Australia, it is a different list altogether.

A better plan would be to follow the good example set by similar pages on Wikipedia such as List of tallest buildings in the world, List of tallest buildings in the United States and others, which present the list of completed buildings at the top of the page, with other yet-to-be-completed buildings in another list further down the page.

I have once again reverted the article as the issues I have identified have not been addressed. Please don't simply revert it back straight away - the buildings in question have been commented out, which is the fairest way to leave it before this matter is resolved. Easel3 11:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

While bias (perceived or not) is still a silly reason to remove the proposed buildings, placing them in a separate list on the same page as you've noted is done in other articles is a good idea. I don't quite agree with the 'undue weight' as the non-completed buildings are not ranked, but I can see how it could be confusing. Having a list of completed and one for under construction/approved (but not proposed) will work well, and is much better than removing them altogether. Iorek 11:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly believe that it would be wrong to include proposed buidlings on this page. Such projects are often delayed, cancelled or amended prior to actually getting underway. To include these projects would bring a high degree of misinformation. Also, the sheer number of proposed buildings is immense, unwieldley and in constant flux. The best indication of when a project deserves inclusion on this page is once construction commences. MyFavco (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to MyFavco's comment here. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Conversions

The heights for Rialto Towers don't make any sense, 270m is NOT 824 ft. According to the Rialto Towers page, the height listed in metres is the antenna height while the height listed in feet is the roof height. According to the rules which are being applied here, the height in metres should be listed as 251m. Personally I don't see the difference between an antenna and a spire (other than that the antenna is useful) but that's beside the point.SeanBE (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You are using height to pinnacle

You state this at the top, but you are NOT using height to spire only

Rialto towers, central place (perth), bourke place, 120 collins, 101 collins, many more have only communications masts, but you count these anyway

rialto is particularly glaring as its antenna is almost invisible yet you still count it, as with central parks small antenna.

you are not measuring to spire only in into as you state, but to pinnacle height

ive adjusted this accordingly, and have adjusted riparian plaza (brisbane) to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 08:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sydney Tower

Why isn't Sydney tower in the list? It's the tallest building in Sydney! 149.135.43.118 09:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Because this list doesn't include observation towers. Iorek85 11:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd protest that. I haven't looked or anything, but is there a protocol of some sort against observation towers? They are buildings after all. And it does serve communication functions too I believe. I think it should be in the list. Michaelterren (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the definition of a building does not include towers or other nonbuilding structures. Have a bit of a read at List of tallest buildings in the world for a bit more info. The List of towers includes observation/communications towers, the List of tallest buildings and structures in the world also includes these. However, tallest buildings articles such as this one only include buildings, which we classify as structures which are continuously habitable. The Sydney Tower is not considered a building but a tower. If you would like to see it in all its glory, please visit List of tallest buildings and structures in Australia. Hope this clears things up a little... Sorry I couldn't be more clear. --timsdad ^(talk) 16:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed Sydney Tower from list again after it was returned to the list in August 2010. Ozzieboy (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed the Sydney Tower once again from the list. It was on the list since November 2010. MelbourneStar1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC).

Eureka Tower floor count

Whether it be a basement or underground floor, the Eureka Tower features 92 storeys all together. [4] If you remove that...it's simply ludacris as removing the Eureka's title as one of the 'tallest all-residential buildings'...replacing it with ....'tallest nearly-all-residential building' because it has a few floors that are used for something else (skydeck/restauraunt/maintanance etc.).

If there are other buildings on this article that have basement levels/underground levels feel free to add them with references from an appropriate site such as the building's own website. MelbourneStar1 (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent heights used

Sorry unintentionally removed that.

Some of the heights used in here are so ridiculous it makes the whole article a joke and completely useless.

To avoid some buildings counting to roof, some to tiny communications masts recognised nowhere ie rialto, some to spires, etc, i would suggest simply importing the official list of Australia's tallest from CTBUH.

I will do this within the next few days for the sake of consistency and usability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 08:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take it step by step, and do not remove the whole table, as you did before. In your edit that removed the whole table, it also removed pictures as well. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 08:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have redone this

Please do not revert:

Previously the list was laughably inconsistent, using in some cases roof height, in some cases pinnacle (where that should not be used), in some cases using spire, in some cases using roof. This made the entire list unusable. As such I have made a list using the official CTBUH heights found on their database website. I have also merged the to roof table (which was full of heights to antennae, even though it said to roof) into this table, with an additional column, which one can use to sort the list by clicking. This makes it much cleaner and more consistent.

I have included buildings that are finishing in 2011 to avoid having to go and change the list immediately - the topped out 111 eagle st, city square, as well as Soleil, Hilton, which are due for topping out within one month.

The section on U/C and approved/proposed buildings was full of a) incorrect heights/floor counts, as well as b) stale and forgotten proposals. Given the fact that many of these had been proposed for many years and nothing had come out of them, it would be advisable to just mention buildings that are under construction, given the fact that many of those proposed do not get up.

I removed the image of the buildings in comparisson as it includes one of the aforementioned errors (Bourke Place shown as aust 5th tallest at 254m instead of the official height which does not include antennae mast). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 08:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As there are only 2 buildings in the height range that would get them onto the main list on the page, I have mentioned them briefly in the short intro as they do not warrant a whole table for only two buildings.

This list is far more clear, consistent and usable now (as well as not being full of errors). I hope you can all enjoy, will read this and comment before attempting to revert anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 08:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Melb star -- what information are you saying is removed? It has all the same information listed as the previous one -- sans the badly set out second table which could be merged into the first one, and the proposed buildings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 08:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

~23,000 bytes, is not step-by-step. Your intentions are great, but you cannot remove that much information, in just one go. It leaves editors confused on what information has been kept and what hasn't. Your edit summary doesn't help with that either. I suggest instead of removing the whole lot, you should just fix this and that, step by step, that way it won't leave other editors confused, and thinking "hey, this editor has removed a lot of information...that's vandalism". Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 08:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case i suggest you explain to me what information precisely you believe has been removed. If indeed you have not been able to give me an idea of what you think has been removed, that has not been outlined in my edit summary, then i will be able to give weight to this claim. Changing bit by bit is all well and good, but in the end after several days it would look exactly as it does now.

The fact is this article was completely unusable and full of inconsistency, out of date misinformation, and was completely unusable. I believe that changing this is far more important than not "confusing" "the other editors", although i do not see any objections apart from your own. Maybe if the article was not completely full of misinformation as it was, i would be able to give weight to that claim.

Also, where are these huge changes? Two tables were merged to become neater, an erroneous image removed, along with some stale proposals, and the glaring inconsistencies and factual errors in heights were put right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 08:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing 85 References, is very unacceptable, just like 30,000 bytes down to 6,000 is also the same [5]. Your edit has removed the section that shows the tallest approved/ Under construction. Before you make any reverts or major changes, like the ones you have so far done, make sure this discussion is finished, both editors agreeing. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 08:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

23000 bytes and 80 references down to 6000 bytes is desirable if the remainder were superfluous. Okay, in that case, i will tomorrow remove the erroneous image including bourke place at the wrong height, as well as updating the introduction to include the concrete figures i had provided and the explanation of the CTBUH heights (the intro now is focussed on the tallest res tower, which has now been overtaken twice...). Gradual enough for you? RE the approved/UC section, as i said, many of these are stale proposals so i feel it safest to just include UC buildings, as i have done in the intro. but if you really want the approved, etc then we may as well keep this table.

The main thing that must be changed so that people can actually use it is the erroneous and inconsistent heights in the table - YES, this means i had to redo the table, because i wanted to include a roof height column so that the completely unnecessary and clunky roof height table could be merged into it neatly. I do not see how you could have any possible objection to this correction of facts and streamlining. Yes replacing those two tables with one may seem a large change, but it is the same information, just corrected and merged neatly. You seem to be objecting to the principle but little concrete details. If you have no objection I will set about these things "gradually" over the next few days. Saruman-the-white (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good thing to consolidate the data down into a sortable table. However, you need to make sure there are figures in all of the cells of all of the columns, so the sort function can do its job. I also think you should avoid the use of the acronym "CTBUH", because it's ugly, annoying and opaque. Does the number of floors given only count those above the ground, or basements too? Also, you should keep the references to Emporis and Skyscraperpage, where appropriate, for each figure in the table. Stripping out those references and just leaving a single reference to the "CTBUH" site is not helpful, it makes the article worse because it is then only relying on a single source. More sources are better. Anyway, just edit the article up to address these issues in your personal userspace (e.g. here), then the conflict here should be resolved. - Mark 14:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean by userspace but I will consolidate into one sortable table with all figures as you have said, remove the image that includes an error, update the intro, and update the incorrect heights throughout the next few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 03:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

1/6/2011:

I have set about fixing this article to make it usable gradually to fit in with your suggestions. Today I have: Removed the image of 6 buildings side by side as a result of the erroneous height of bourke place in that diagram; fleshed out the intro slightly more to include some concrete stats as to the concentration of high rise buildings in aust, replacing the broad, vague and unsubstantiated sentence that was there beforehand, and most importantly, I have painstakingly gone through CTBUH and emporis, replacing the incorrect height figures that were throughout the first list, added buildings topped out in 2011, added roof height column to this graph for usability and navigability. These are gradual changes with the whole preexisting format utilised and all existing references kept.

In the remainder of the week, I hope to look at removing the height to roof table, given the fact that i've put in a height to roof column in one easily navigable table, as well as maybe adding some more pictures of tallest buildings in some of the other capitals and updating the approved/uc list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 07:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

2/6/2011:

Have added more and more variety of images down the side where they fit. I shall put the question to any other editors whether they think the height in feet column is necessary given that we do not use feet here and in 99% of other countries, and that the industry standard is metres. If you concur I shall remove at also later in the week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 03:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Barring the fact that I had exams for the past two weeks, I would have appreciated a Talkback message left on my usertalk, before this "Removal of Content" was to take place. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a clue as to what that is. This article is 'owned' by nobody and does not require 'permission' of anybody to edit something. I left a detailed description of the fixes up for a very long while, and fixed everything else in the very gradual way to appease you. Now - instead of just unthinkingly rolling that back - I will ask you for what concrete reason you have against my last edit. All information in the height to roof section (heights to the roof) is not contained in the major table, which gives both a height to architectural feature AND a height to roof. The information is exactly the same, merely arranged more consistently and coherently. WHAT on earth is your objection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 11:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say I owned the article, so don't put words in my mouth, thank you. I was one of the editors that objected, above ^^^, so yes, I do have a say. Unlike having both seperate tables, the option of having one, with both height to roof and height to architectural features, is not flexible. The seperate tables, have seperate rankings. Your edit only shows one ranking, and that is by architectural feature, and you have not made the table so that you can click a button, then it arranges itself into tallest building to roof. You have also failed to keep "notes" from the deleted table. Next time, if possible, could you notify another editor, who surely would object to this, that you'd be removing information....instead of surprising them by saying something along the lines of "removing, with no objections on the talk page"...common courtesy.

If you make those small fixes inc. merging notes together etc., you have the green light to keep the one table, unopposed. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 13:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Destructive IP edits

IP editor 124.190.46.13 has gone through the list of tallest buildings to architectural (official) height and changed all the Melbourne buildings so that they include height to pinnacle, including the antennas for Bourke Place and Melbourne Central Tower which are not included in their official architectural heights. This change required him to make around 50 edits which took me over an hour to fix. Please if you see any edits like this which clearly contradict the purpose of the list, revert them immediately.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Page archive

Does anyone object to the archiving of discussions on this page which have taken place 180 days prior? - Shiftchange (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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 13:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Shaded-white-shaded-white format

@Saruman-the-white: regarding "Completed removal of the shading of every second row on the table as whenever a new building is added it causes havoc and is near impossible to maintain as shaded-white-shaded-white"— we have not had the shade-white-shade-white format since June 2015... so I'm unsure as to what you are referring to.

The current format, of shading only buildings once tallest in Australia when they were completed is consistent with lists, such as List of tallest buildings in the United States. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah there were a few rogue shaded ones in there for some reason. Thanks for this. Much simpler.

@Saruman-the-white: No worries, I had changed the format back in June, as I too, had much difficulty maintaining black/white/black format. This current format allows to shade only those that need to be shaded - buildings which were once tallest in Australia - instead of changing the shade everytime a new building enters the list. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Viability of Keeping Roof Heights Table + What number to stop at on Main Table

I would like to discuss two things, particularly with Melbourne Star who has been instrumental in the maintenance of this page at such a high level.

The first issue is the viability of keeping the roof heights table. While I would have personally liked to keep it (Brisbane where I'm from has many more 'flat top' buildings than Sydney or Melbourne so we are 'disadvantaged' so to speak), the fact is these heights are not reliably reported on anymore. CTBUH reports to architectural and to highest occupiable floor (ie to the carpet of the floor on the top level) which is very different to height to roof. Then we have the issue of plant rooms, etc - what constitutes a 'roof'. Many of the designs today are such that there is uninhabitable decorative structure at the top which resembles a roof and it's impossible to work out where the 'roof' ends and where a spire starts (Shard and Burj Khalifa are good examples). This is why it's so hard (sometimes impossible) to find reliable roof heights for all the more recent buildings. For this reason, I'd suggest doing away with the roof heights table as it is getting impossible to maintain accuracy. One option would be to delete the second table but on the main official height table include a further column next to each building which could specify other heights, whichever are reliably available for that particular building, ie height to highest occupiable floor or roof height - thus any notable ones could always be included. I reckon this would be a good option.

Also, I want to discuss which number we should stop at on the main table. I note we are already up to 30 and that it has increased from about 20 going back to when I started editing this page. There two several options. First, we could decide on a good round number (ie 50) and make it a 'Australia's top 50' list and stop when we hit that number. Once we hit that number and have a bunch of time on our hands we could conceivably make it a top 100 but can't imagine it going beyond there. Second option would be to pick a height (ie 200 m) and make it a "Australia's 200m+" - although the problem is by all indications in about 10 years the number of 200m+ will be absolutely massive and the page will go on and on and would eventually become untenable. As such I would be leaning towards the 'pick a number and stop there' option.

I think making a decision on these two things would massively streamline the page. Thoughts?--Saruman-the-white (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Saruman.

I understand what you're saying, however, I believe CTBUH serves us well in providing accurate data as for roof heights. I understand not all buildings will have up to date data availible (anywhere) but I don't see this as cause to remove content. But, nevertheless, I concur that this can be an issue. I propose the following:

Over at the list of tallest buildings in Melbourne, the completed list there incorporates both architectural and roof heights of skyscrapers. This, would enable the deletion of the second table.

However, I still believe that roof heights are of importance: Q1 stands at 323 metres in height — to spire — yet 245 metres to roof. This is only one example of many; 120 Collins Street is 265m to spire, 220 to roof. 101 Collins Street is 260m to spire — and not even a 200m+ building to roof. I believe these are of importance to the reader.

I support your second point, which is why in the current format we have 200 metres plus as will be indicated in the introduction of said section. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah that would be an option, but I would call it 'other measures' rather than roof height, because a roof height is never provided on CTBUH. The issue I am raising is it's very often that we can't decide where the roof is. Take the example you gave, Q1. Where is the roof? Is it at the roof of the topmost inhabitable floor? (just over 200m) Is it at the top of the plant room? (a few above that) Or is it at the top of the decorative glass blades that wrap around the top of the building but in no way constitute a structure? (more like 245m) This is why, if you look at CTBUH for Q1, as with just about every building, they don't include a roof height (http://skyscrapercenter.com/building/q1-tower/399). The roof heights are impossible to find. An observatory figure is given for Q1 (235m) which is the height of the floor of the observation deck. No roof height given. Same goes for any other building. They will sometimes give height of highest habitable floor (not the roof, whatever that is), sometimes observatory if there is an ob deck, but they will not even attempt to give a 'roof' height because CTBUH will not even try to define where the 'roof' is. This is why the roof heights for our table are all off sources like Skyscrapercity forums, because CTBUH doesn't actually provide them. As such I'd say we should include a column for other measures and for each building we can include whatever measures we like, so long as a reliable source is found.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

'Other measures' sounds as though those measures are somehow discredited – perhaps, simply: architectural (or spire) / roof, as used in the Melbourne list. Height to "tip" for example, is a discredited height, as it is not official (ie. buildings which have masts rather spires: those masts are not included in height). There are other sources which can be used should CTBUH not comprise the figures we are looking for — emporis provides the 245 figure, and indeed clarifies what roof it is (roof or main roof).

Nevertheless: there aren't many buildings in Australia, at least, that have a spire. It should not be an issue to find a reliable source - CTBUH or Emporis or otherwise. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That could certainly work, however I think height to roof is somewhat discredited as it's often very hard to say where the roof is - see Q1 as an example. Alternatively, as with the United States article, we could have a small table with one line of text per building and no pictures for measures like height to 'roof' or 'tip' at the bottom of the article (they only have height to tip - but I would suggest leaving this out as it's even harder to find heights to lightening rods, antennae, etc than it is for heights to roof). Or maybe just noting roof heights for all the buildings with spires in the large 'notes' column for each building on the main table would be sufficient. I would probably suggest maybe a compact table with no pictures for roof heights with maybe 20 buildings tops. I think any of the options would be better than what we have currently though which is part duplication and part unnecessary clutter and complexity so I wouldn't be against any of them. Overall, I think the Melbourne article is a model article for skyscraper heights.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I propose a compromise: should we follow the Melbourne model, we follow it as is. We can remove the the second section with roof heights, but we devide the "height" column in the first section into two —height by "Spire", height by "Roof"— like the List of tallest buildings in Melbourne article.

Also: In regards to your latest edit – St Kilda Road is part of the CBD of Melbourne City (not Melbourne Metro); that's as opposed to Chatswood and Parramatta. Hence why I have undone your edit. CTBUH has defined Chatswood and Parramatta as their own CBDs.

I might add: North Sydney, despite having limited amounts of highrise buildings, also has its own CTBUH listing - because like Chatswood and Parramatta, it too, is defined as a seperate CBD. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay the Melbourne model would be the way to go. Well the ABS certainly defines everything from Bondi to Cambelltown as one big single Sydney metro area, but I take your point that CTBUH, while not being the most qualified to be the judges with regard to urban forms, break it down this way, so for the sake of being able to follow one single source throughout the article I'll conceed it should stay that way. With regard to the intro saying how many buildings over 150m are in each city. Maybe this should be removed. I feel it is best covered in the tabulated form with its own section. The reason is because it's hard to decide on a specific height. For example, for buildings over 100m, Sydney leads all the rest by a long way, and Brisbane is almost as high as Melbourne, with Perth and Adelaide basically on nothing. For 150m it's how we see now. Above 200m as we go up Melbourne and Brisbane start to increasingly triumph over Sydney. Because of the massive change that occurs in the overall picture I feel that the table form with multiple thresholds is the way to go, and it should have buildings 100m+, buildings 150-200m, buildings 200-250m, buildings 250-300m, and buildings 300m+, so you can easily see the full picture across all levels. This section could even be moved up the page. I don't know that it works as well compressed into a single sentence in the intro though. The two pictures and captions of each Sydney and Melbourne however I feel go well at the top.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand that the ABS may have different defintions, but yes, as you said, it is preferable in my opinion to rely on the single source – otherwise defintions debates occur and it all equates to semantics.

With in regards to your second comment regarding 100 metres vs 150 metres vs 200 metres etc etc. I agree that Sydney is currently ahead of all cities (albeit, Melbourne has less than 5 to go per CTBUH data interestingly enough). Nevertheless: the 150m figure is specifically used for the following purpose: skyscrapers are buildings above 150 metres again, according to CTBUH, but also, this theory is consistent among Wikipedia articles, including the Skyscraper page.

The issue with going below the 150m threshold is more on a basis of inconvenience towards the editors and more so the reliability and verifiability of the data: if we were to go 100m+ buildings - 1. there are more CBDs than the 7 CBDs listed for 150m+ buildings (ie. there are plenty of regional cities with 100m+). 2. Data, as according to CTBUH, is incomplete with buildings below 150 metres. So instead of listing high-rise buildings (more than xMetres but less than 150 metres), I think it's best we focus on skyscrapers (150 metres and over). Thoughts? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You raised some good points and I'll agree with that. My feeling is it may be somewhat clumsy and unnecessary to list the number of 150m+ for each city in the intro (especially as the number of cities with a 150m+ will continue to grow with eg Parramatta, North Sydney, etc) and it's already looking a bit clumsy with places like Chatswood which is why other countries' articles don't do a similar thing I feel. Aside from that, I totally take your points.

I'm not so staunch in keeping that, but nevertheless: per WP:LEAD I think it is somewhat appropriate, as the lead needs to summarise content within the article. Do you have any other suggestions with what we should do with that part of the lead, perhaps? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think alluding to a vague geographical distribution like eg mentioning most in east coast states or going by states, even maybe without referring to a particular height is sufficient, to avoid what is set to happen in the next few years with 4 NSW 'cities' alone to be listed in a single sentence in the intro along with all the other cities which will be a big clumsy string. I should have a bunch of free time somewhere in the next couple of months so I can put some time into changing the table so that it matches the Melbourne one with regard to the official/roof heights column. I might also add into the intro something about the history of skyscrapers in Aust in general and the massive boom of recent years relative to further back, etc. Getting rid of that second table will also bring the 'historical no of skyscrapers' stats and the table/graph further up the page which I think is a good thing as this is pretty illustrative. Anyway will leave it for now until I get anticipated free time--Saruman-the-white (talk) 08:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Touché, you make a very good point. At one stage or another we will have to remove said line in the lead, as it will become too cluttered with the amount of CBDs popping up in NSW. A possible method could be as follows; "33 in New South Wales (within 3 CBDs)"? I don't know, but we have plenty of time to play around with it I suppose.

I think your edits will bring of great value to the article, I look forward to helping out wherever I can. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)