Skyscrapers 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles
Can we please form a consensus as to what height is required to warrant a building qualifying as a "Skyscaper". The Wiki Skyscraper page states that the building needs to exceed 150m. I agree with this as this is the definition I am used to working with. The current Catergory includes many buildings between 100m and 150m. It is my opinion that these should be removed.MyFavco (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the article clearly points out, there is no height classification for the term "skyscraper". The article says "A loose convention in the United States and Europe now draws the lower limit of a skyscraper at 150 meters (500 ft)" but that's only in the US and Europe. It really depends on the other buildings in the city...
If we begin to remove all buildings under 150 metres from lists, some lists (such as List of tallest buildings in Adelaide) will have to be deleted, as they will contain no or very few buildings. --timsdad(talk) 09:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article also points out that there is general consenus that +150m constitutes a Skyscraper. It is silly to include all and sundry buildings which are relatively short in a catergory labelled "skyscrapers". Buildings under 150m are generally not visible on a city horizon as they are crowded out by taller buildings. Buildings greater than 150m also have particular design features which set them apart from those which are shorter, they really are of a different breed.
The deletion of a "Skyscrapers in Australia" page catergorisation will not remove it from the List of tallest buildings in Adelaide list. It will merely mean that it will no longer show up on the Australian Skyscrapers list. Surely, only true Skyscapers should be featured on this list.-MyFavco (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you in that only important skyscrapers should be included, yet I'm concerned about your comment: "buildings under 150m are generally not visible on a city horizon as they are crowded out by taller buildings". I'll use List of tallest buildings in Adelaide as an example again. Westpac House is only 135 metres tall and is most definitely not crowded out by taller buildings on the city horizon. The skyscraper article expresses the fact that in most cases, 150 metres is an acceptable skyscraper classification height, yet a skyscraper in a city should only be defined by the rest of the skyline. No matter how short (within reason), any building could be a skyscraper as long as it "protrudes above its built environment and changes the overall skyline". --timsdad(talk) 11:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adelaide is an example of relativity. Relativity is subjective. If subjectivity is acceptable then so is the following comment: "I have been to the Adelaide CBD and did I not find a single Skyscraper". This catergory is not about getting equal representation from our captial cities, it should be a list of Skyscrapers found in Australia (regardless of which city they are in). There is a catergory specifically for tall buildings in Adelaide if that is the query someone has.-MyFavco (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I might point out that there are probably hundreds of categories for skyscrapers in countries, cities, etc. all around the world. If we're going to attempt to establish a minimum height, then there should probably be some sort of Wikipedia-wide "skyscraper" definition. If we're going to take this any further, it should probably go to the Wikiproject. --timsdad(talk) 11:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
