Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester

Orphaned references in List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "emporis.com":

• From List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester: "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 20 August 2014. Retrieved 2014-08-18. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
• From List of tallest buildings in Europe: "Polat Tower Residence, Istanbul on". Istanbul /: Emporis.com. Retrieved 2012-07-08.
• From List of tallest residential buildings: "The Marina Torch". Emporis Corporation. Retrieved 17 February 2010.
• From List of tallest buildings in the Philippines: http://www.emporis.com/city/makati-philippines/all-buildings
• From List of tallest buildings in the European Union: GmbH, Emporis. "La Muratella, Rome - 256356 - EMPORIS". Retrieved 26 December 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221193213/http://www.byrominfo.com/ to http://www.byrominfo.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Name of city centre?

The references to buildings in the Greengate area talk about it being in central Manchester when it isn't in Manchester at all but the City of Salford.

The city centre straddles both Manchester and Salford, rather then just edit everything to be technically correct is there a better terminology to refer to the Manchester/Salford city centre region? Heptalion67 (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Ramada mixup

The list includes the (Ramada) Renaissance hotel on Deansgate / Blackfriars street but shows a picture of the former Jarvis/Ramada hotel in Piccadilly currently trading as Mercure. The latter is fairly tall itself and a prominent building so should probably be included as well.92.200.216.178 (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion criterion

As the list size here is getting excessive, making the article harder to maintain, I increased the inclusion criterion to keep it manageable. I received a thankyou for that edit so clearly I'm not alone in thinking this way. This has since been reverted with the objection,

As discussed in the talk page, this list represents Greater Manchester and therefore we agreed to keep the minimum heights to 50 metres to allow representation and information for various towns that make up the area.

After trying to find where this agreement occurred it turns out that it was just a comment by the editor on a featured delisting. This does not demonstrate consensus on this point, and I think it's worth sorting out.

We are already at 162 lines in the completed list alone, and at the rate of construction in Greater Manchester that is increasing rapidly. The change of the inclusion criterion to 75 metres was actually already a compromise on my part. I think it would be better to push it to 100 metres as is common with the lists of cities with a similar scale to Manchester.

I appreciate the desire to give all of Greater Manchester representation however, but a low inclusion criterion on the main lists is a poor way to do it. Do we really need to list hundreds of non-notable buildings across Comp/UC/App/Pro? There are other ways, for instance we could have a list of the top 3 tallest buildings by borough; that way we have a relatively static list of 30 entries where only a couple of boroughs are going to experience much editing.

So I propose we move to a 100 metre inclusion criterion in the main lists, with a separate list of the top 3 tallest buildings by borough (without a height limit). ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Collapsible table for 50-89 m tall buildings

I'm a fairly frequent editor to this article and noting the section above from ChiZeroOne from almost two years ago, decided to try and hopefully improve the article's readability by splitting the 'Completed' table into buildings that are 90 m or taller (which totals 26 - much more manageable I thought) and a collapsible table with the remaining long list of buildings that are 50-89 m tall. At this stage I didn't want to delete any information on the latter, as a lot of work has gone into that by other editors. More than happy to accept more user-friendly alternatives, this really was a trial on my part to be Bold! Mmberney (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

After a bit more thought, I've increased the minimum criterion to 100 m for the first table, as suggested in the previous section, so it's more in common with other similar lists of tall buildings. Mmberney (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)