Talk:List of tallest buildings in Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
List	This article has been rated as list-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Portal	List of tallest buildings in Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
List	This page is a list and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.

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)

Contents 1 Original research 2 Sorted 3 Missing Buildings 4 Height measurement of buildings to solve the spire/pinnacle issue. 5 Sydney Tower 6 Sortable list 7 Removal of buildings which have not yet been built

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)