Talk:List of tallest buildings in Melbourne

Navigation Template

I'm about to replace all the hardcoded navigation boxes to the next taller and shorter building on each Melbourne skyscraper article with a template: it doesn't make sense to me that there should be all that markup sitting in the articles duplicated. invincible 15:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Eureka Tower floor count

I've noticed that in this article and in Eureka Tower's own article, various anonymous editors have been altering the tower's floor count to 92 without any sources. I've described this in a bit more detail at Talk:Eureka Tower#Floor count dispute. I'd like to discuss this matter with the editors who have been editing the floor count, as I understand, there are different ways to interpret the floor count (does the basement count? Or the open rooftop parapet?) invincible (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[1] your answer...it don't get any more clear than that :) MelbourneStar1 (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Major Future Projects

Hello all, I was the one who made the table on the "Major Future Projects" section of the article, yes it's a bit of a change, but it took me over 5 hours to do, and I did it at the best of my ability. These projects are real. I found them on SkyscraperCity with sources from SkyScraperCity forum and Grollo Melbourne (Dec 2010). Feel free to update this table, and feel free to put cancelled projects into a simmilar table. I did this because those original proposals were out of date, with few that didnt even exist :)

Feel free to contact me on my talk page, if there are any problems or issues with my edit :)

Thankyou! MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

100 metre+ v. 150 metre+

I have shortened the list (completed and proposed lists) to only list buildings above 150 metres in height. This is due to the list exceeding 65 spots - and there being currently more than 40 proposals between 100-150 metres in height. The shortened list has 25 buildings over 150 metres in the completed section - and another 20 in the proposed section. -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 03:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Rounding up/down the height numbers

The Melbourne page is inconsistent with other AU building pages as it marks the cm on many projects. So I suggest rounding up/down the height numbers and have done so. It is much cleaner this way. Though I have left the "buildings over 200m" graphic untouched. UnbreakableMass (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2015 (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 13:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead + History sections

I do concur that the lead of the article perhaps should be expanded, in order to encompass a better grip of the article itself; however, I disagree in cutting down the history section, and moving content to the lead –ie. robbing Peter to pay Paul. The history section goes into detail and depth:

• The tables either extrapolate afforementioned content (No. of 150m+ completions table) or go into a further detail in explaining content in the History section (Precinct of Melbourne table presenting buildings completed or otherwise proposed).
• Images: an image of the city as a whole (including each precinct) + two smaller images of the two major city precincts (Inner City and Southbank).

The lead certainly needs work, and I'll be happy to help out in any way, although I don't believe it should be at the expense of the History section, which details the history of the tallest buildings in Melbourne. Thoughts? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The History section is too busy. You have 2 tables, 3 images, and it's all sandwiched together in a claustrophobic text. There is no need to go overkill with images and the second table seems a little redundant. The stuff I took out of "History" to put in the lead is information that has no relevance in the History section to begin with–it's about Melbourne having two skylines divided b y the Yarra. The only place this belongs, in my opinion, is in the introduction. Everything else is fine. Also please remember that an intro is supposed to briefly touch on what the article will go into depth about later–such as Melbourne's earliest noteworthy skyscraper (APA Building). I don't like how there's literally about four sentences in the lead, then all of a sudden there's an overload of info in the history. It looks pathetic and your reverts aren't being constructive at all. I wrote a lot of what is now in this article, and I used Featured Articles like List of tallest buildings in Chicago as a guide. Why shouldn't Chicago's page be followed, when it's deemed an exemplary article on the exact same topic as the one this page is exploring. Your logic is flawed. Ashton 29 (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, if you read the bit about the devided skylines, you'll see that it specifically mentions that this was not always the case – hence, why it belongs in the history section, also. The second table being redundant, is simply your opinion – that table illustrates how many buildings there are/will be in each distinct precinct of Melbourne.

Your logic isn't exactly the greatest either: last I checked, I'm not forced to follow another article for this article. Topics are different despite what you may think, and moreso: Chicago's article doesn't go to this depth. And if you bothered reading the beginning of this section on talk, you'd know I agree the lead needs to be expanded - just not at the expense of the history section.

Also, if you want to talk about "unconstructive reverts" take you and that boomerang of yours to WP:BRD. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Well actually, if that's the case, you should have kept my introduction as is and expanded on that in a History section that you penned yourself, not took fragments of my lead and made it "History". Melbourne isn't an old city, Chicago is far older, with far more buildings of architectural heritage, yet it doesn't have a History section, it cuts to the chase in the lead. So why Melbourne's is so in-depth, with such a tiny introduction is puzzling. If you're willing to write a lead, I'd be happy with that, but you shouldn't have began "History" at the expense of the lead. Also, I don't know if I really appreciate the first image from the Shrine of the Remembrance... the skyline is kind of overwhelmed by those trees. Can't you use that further down in the article, so we just have one image in History? Ashton 29 (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't own that lead, nor do I own that section, as you claim. Wikipedia does. If you want to play that game, you will also recognise that I have edited this article more than you, and any other editor combined. Does that mean I have more relevance here? no. So let's push that silly notion aside, shall we.

Where would we put said image you're talking about? there's not really any appropriate section is there? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I just don't want the dismal lead to dwindle away and remain as short as it currently is. Also, perhaps that image could go in "Buildings above 200 metres in height" above or below the graph bar, since they are both wide images.Ashton 29 (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

And hey – make no mistake, I agree. Just how we go about changing that, will perhaps be different.

Regarding the image, I've previewed how it looks... I agree, it can be moved to said section. Formatting the image so that it doesn't encroach on the following section, will need to be done. Otherwise, I don't see why that can't be moved there. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I've made the changes we've discussed. I hope that suffices. Any thoughts? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Premier Tower UC 2019.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Outdated content

Re @Hippohead10,000:'s recent edits. I'm not sure what you're trying to do (as you're not using an edit summary for any of your edits). Your adding in content that is either outdated, or false. For example:

• 280 Queen Street is cited as "vision", yet you list it as approved. That was years ago, it hasn't proceeded and now CTBUH lists it as "vision".
• Magic is cited as "vision", yet you list it as approved. I don't recall it being approved anywhere, so I'm not too sure where you've got that from. Irrespective, this wasn't a real proposal -- it was a concept.
• 383 La Trobe Street, again, cited as "vision", yet you list it as approved. Developers haven't proceeded with the project and CTBUH lists it as "vision".

Secondly, per Wikipedia:Citing sources: please stick to the current referencing style or seek to change it on the talk page. Great that you're adding sources, however, this referencing style is different to the hundreds of existing references: <ref>Ministerial planning applications - City of Melbourne . 2020. Ministerial planning applications - City of Melbourne . [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/building-and-development/planning-and-building-services/planning-applications/Pages/ministerial-applications.aspx. [Accessed 19 September 2020].</ref>. In fact, I don't think I've seen such referencing style on Wikipedia. Regardless, the referencing style this list follows is: <ref name="COMplanningapplications">[https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/building-and-development/planning-and-building-services/planning-applications/Pages/ministerial-applications.aspx "Ministerial planning applications"]. ''City of Melbourne'' . retrieved 19 September 2020.</ref>.

I'll try to restore the parts of your edits which were correct, but if you could in future take this on board that would be good. If there's anything you need help with, please let me know, I'm happy to help. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hippohead10,000: 710 Collins Street was proposed 6 years ago, it's now listed as "vision". Secondly, you're still adding the wrong formatting for references. Please use the consistent referencing identified above. If you need help, please respond. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)