Talk:Sydney Tower

message: Do we really need two photos that are essentially the same? I'd remove one. Keep the upper one, because it was the first, or the lower one, because one can see the tower's gold color more clearly on that one? --Yogi de 07:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The second one is prettier, I kept it. Being first means nothing on wiki. -Randwicked 11:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: The lead says it's Australia's second tallest free standing structure. However it clearly has guy wires. So what does "free standing" mean? Stevage 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sort of agree with Stevage, but how IS free-standing defined? Probably hard to pin down. Ingolfson 03:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: free standing means that it isn't suported by anything. It is used to distinguish buildings like the CN tower from oil platforms that can go hundreds of metres down to the floor of the ocean. 202.156.66.110 09:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not "guy wires".  It is an unusual pre-stressed concrete structure where some of the reinforcing is outside the concrete column.Eregli bob (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Free standing?

message: "Sydney Tower", 151,000
"Centrepoint Sydney", 218,000
"Centerpoint Sydney", 102,000
151,000 vs 320,000.
I've never heard any Australian call it 'Sydney Tower', just like the contempt we had for it being called friggen 'Amp Tower' when AMP bought it.  It's Centerpoint / Centrepoint, and -always- will be.  :)  'nuff said.  Jachin 06:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should still be under the official name. Others names are redirected here, so no big loss.MadMaxDog 22:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Can someone confirm its TWO restaurants? The renovation articles talk of one only. MadMaxDog 22:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The a-la-carte restaurant is now promoted as part-bar, part-restaurant , but the food still appears to be the main focus (the buffet restaurant is still there, although renovated according to the article). I think it's still safe to speak of two restaurants in that way. -Spiky Sharkie [ talk ] 11:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Restaurants

message: I have edited the infobox image to remove the building and the utility pole. What do people think, should we replace the article image with it? Ingolfson 02:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to edited image? 

message: This article doesn't mention what's on the floor of the tower not open to the public. I doubt that the antenna (or "spire") is there for show and tell, or for TV reception. It's purpose stated here is for telecommunications and observation. Does anyone know if Australia's intelligence services have a floor there? Maybe the CIA's Sydney substation (if they have one) has office space there too? If nobody knows, is anyone willing to file a FOI request to find out exactly what's on the floor not open to the public? I can't find anything using Google that even asks the question what's on the floor not open to the public. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.101.228 (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it's just housing the water tank and plant/service areas. Just because you can't find information through Google doesn't mean it's some big secret. If you don't want to research beyond typing a few keywords into a web search box, try asking in the Oz section of the skyscrapercity forums - I'm sure someone there will have an answer for you (albeit unciteable). 121.44.98.216 (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You "suspect?" Why is that? Are you an architect who designs these buildings? Is it typical a whole floor not open to the public would be a water tank and/or plant/service area? Just because you can't find information through Google doesn't mean it's some big secret that there are suspected water tank and plant/service areas. If you don't want to research beyond typing a few keywords into a web search box, try asking in the Oz section of the skyscrapercity forums - I'm sure someone there will have a suspected answer for you (albeit unciteable and only suspected). ;)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.44.92 (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  wow my house isn't open to the public, i wonder what strange things go on in there... unspkeakable things... (looks around suspiciously) 202.156.66.110 (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, file that FOI request then (if there's such a term in Australia). CIA substation? Well, that one's probably in talk's house, though! Ingolfson (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Anyway, I'm with the others - way too exposed to be the site of something like that, and technically not required nowadays (wiretaps, satellites, anyone? Governments do not need tall towers anymore to watch their people...) Ingolfson (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The original poster sounds like he's just stirring the pot. His second post asks how typical it is for a skyscraper to have even one floor dedicated to plant (let alone multiple mechanical floors, which in fact is the case with most skyscrapers), so he clearly hasn't done elementary research before coming up with his theory. The Little Teapot (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

text: "...with the space above the people deck occupied by a 162 000 litre water tank that steadies the building on windy days and topped off with an antenna." - http://travel.ciao.co.uk/Sydney_AMP_Tower__Review_5542796 - Mark 00:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that IS interesting. What do they need 162 tonnes of water up there? Is that all ballast? I guess it could be part of their fire sprinkler system too. Anyway, just asking, not imaging some conspiracy. Though it might make a good shark tank for a James Bond villain. Lording it high over Sydney... Ingolfson (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I read in a paper by the architect that the fire authorities wanted the tank. But it's also suspended and functions as a tuned mass damper. Maybe the size was determined largely by the latter. The Little Teapot (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section not open to the public 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here  -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD]] Tagging

message: There was a "breaking" report at the head of the show about an elevator falling to the ground and another stuck for 2-3 hours, should be plastered over the news tomorrow if its true... end of the news broadcast said 11 people were trapped for a time, but then rescued safely, and there was no falling elevator according to Westfield. 218.215.56.26 (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ten late news wed 2/7/08, elevator trouples 

message: What's the Sydney or Centerpoint Tower made of?
Thank you  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.226.129.168 (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Materials 

message: The top section seems to have been inspired by the much 1950s Fernsehturm Stuttgart. Both have 4 floors. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar to Fernsehturm Stuttgart? 

message: "Public access to the tower, at the time the fourth tallest building in the world, began in August 1981".     This is nonsense.  In 1981,  in the USA alone,  the Empire State building, Chrylser Building, Sears Tower were taller than the Centrepoint Tower.  In addition, the CN Tower in Toronto.  In addition,  the Eiffel Tower which is 120 years old is taller than the Centrepoint Tower.   Fourth highest in 1981,  it was not.Eregli bob (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick glance at List of tallest towers in the world confirmed this to be true so it's gone. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsensical claim

message: Okay, so I edited this article to state that the AMP banner would be comming down in 2012 and replaced with the WESTFIELD banner, this was scheduled for then as i knew it last July in a meeting with Westfield execs, however it has been brought forward to THIS WEEKEND! between the hours of Saturday 21st May 2011 2300 and Sunday Morning 22nd May 2011 1000hrs,
and i cant get into the tower on sunday morning till after 10am because they have to shut the street and the mall to safely operate the helicopter to preform this maneuver.
i have tried twice to change the info on this bloody page and it seems whoever has editing rights to this information does not believe me...
so,
on Sunday the 22nd of May 2011 can i say... I TOLD YOU SO!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.90.187 (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That you work at the tower is not considered to be a reliable source. Personal knowledge is considered to be original research and is not permitted. As I explained on your talk page, Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires attribution to reliable sources. It doesn't matter whether you are correct or not. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Well no, not at all. The sign didn't go up on 22 May, which was what you were claiming. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'AMP' Banner comming down 

message: This article should revert to previous title "Sydney Tower". It is not, and never has been Sydney Tower Eye. The official website of the structure - http://www.sydneytowereye.com.au/explore/history-of-sydney-tower/ - says "11. Sydney Tower retains its original name today as simply 'Sydney Tower', with the Sydney Tower Eye being the name of the viewing attraction located on the upper level, providing the best views from the highest point in the city." I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure how. Ian Page (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there has been a bit of a backlash over the eye. Back in August 2011 it seemed that the name was going to be "Sydney Tower Eye", but as this news report suggested, the name change was destined to be as popular as iSnack2.0, and there appears to have been a back-down. If there is no opposition in a few days I'll move the article back to where it was. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this now. I was the one that originally moved the page based on the news articles linked by AussieLegend. Since it was me that moved it to Sydney Tower Eye I thought I would be bold and move it back to Sydney Tower. Themeparkgc  Talk  21:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tower is NOT called Sydney Tower Eye 

message: First: The construction of a tower is s.th. completely different to the office building. This arcticle is about the tower building and not about the base building. The tower building is starting on top of the office building and not on the basement. 
Second: Your argument  for 1970 as starting year was respected by me with this  compromise that you are blasting by edit war. I see not one argument not to have here a detailed definition of the starting year. --Alabasterstein (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The office building forms the base of the tower - the tower can't float in mid-air. The office building provides the anchor point for the guys and access to the tower, which starts inside the office building - they're one integral unit and were built as such, just as the upper floors of any building are built after the lower floors. The height of Sydney Tower is measured from ground level for this reason. If the office building wasn't considered to be part of the tower, its height wouldn't be included in the height of the tower. As for the edit war, when you make a bold edit, and it is reverted, it's up to you to then provide justification for your edit, as was explained on your talk page. If you make an edit, you shouldn't immediately revert without providing justification. That's edit-warring. When edits like yours are opposed, the status quo prevails. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "office building forms the base of the tower" no one denies this fact. But it is not true that the building and the tower structure are an integral unit from the view of a civil engineer. A tower is a tower and a high-rise building is a high-rise building and a separate unit that has constructional nothing in common. Actually I expand the german article of the Sydney Tower and as I read 1970 first time as starting year this was very confusing because this would mean you would have eleven years construction time for a tower. In the second view this confusion I could dissolve as I read that 1970 was starting of the office building. But if you want just browsing information you read not the article but look at the info box. In this case it is very meaningful to make clear that you have two parts and therefore two starting years. You didn't make reasonable why this shouldn't be make clear in this way. --Alabasterstein (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the problem with an 11 year construction time, or its relevance. The base of the structure had to be completed first, and it isn't a normal building because it was built with the express intent of being the base of the tower. As such, it took more time to build than would have an equivalent building without a tower on top. Once it was finally completed, the tower was erected on top, and the gondola took years to travel up the central core. The Sydney Opera House took 14 years to build - 11 years isn't a long time. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is: the tower wasn't build so long, it was build just 6 years and it conveys a wrong issue if you just set up 1970 as starting year for a tower article. 11 years would be a unusual period compared with similar tower structures. I agree that it's necessary to set also the starting year of the office building. But there is no reason to delete the starting year of the specific tower structure. --Alabasterstein (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction started 

message: I find the claim that Centre Point Tower is commonly called "Sydney Tower" to be rather extraordinary. As a Sydneysider I have never come across such terminology in my life.--Soft and Stout (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Their official site disagrees with you, as does their restaurant, their functions company, the Sydney Tower Stair Challenge and the Sydney Morning Herald. The middle source points out that it stopped being Centrepoint fifteen years ago. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who calls this thing "Sydney Tower" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sydney Tower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080226183936/http://www.sydneytoweroztrek.com.au:80/tower.html to http://www.sydneytoweroztrek.com.au/tower.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified