Template talk:UKSkyscrapers

message: I am unsure about this template. This can develop into something larger and may need a completely different format or style.
Also, at present, it only has skyscrapers in London and not any buildings outside of London, unlike what the template title seems to suggest.
Finally, what is the "British Skyscraper Series"? I have not come across this. I think this template needs an analysis or evaluation. - Erebus555 13:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I have to say this template is riddled with inconsistencies. Several of the proposed buildings are smaller than Liverpool's West Tower yet this is deemed too small for inclusion. Following on from this how exactly can the 13th tallest building in the UK not be considered a skyscraper, as the term is relative and in the UK it IS a skyscraper. Another thing, why are 25 Bank Street and 10 Upper Bank Street in London, not on the list of completed skyscrapers? After all they're both over 150 m. --Daviessimo (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added those two, I think 150 m is a sensible cut-off as it is accepted by many as the definition of a skyscraper, below that is more of a high rise. I have also stipped out the sub-150m proposed buildings to make it more consistent like you requested. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 03:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Maybe there is something that can be added which lets people know that only buildings over 150 m are included, like a clarifying point on the left hand side.--Daviessimo (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  It might not look ideal but at least it avoids some confusion and conflict. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 08:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --Daviessimo (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent 

message: There has been an investment recently secured to build this skyscraper in Sunderland, England. The building standing at 328ft and 33 storeys (99 metres) will be the largest in its city and in its region of North East England. I know the qualification for a skyscraper to get on the template is to be over 150 metres. Despite being significantly smaller than that requirement, does the fact that the Spirit of Sunderland tower will be the largest in its region when built support a notable enough warrant for it to be on the template? Routerone (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Spirit of Sunderland]] 

message: I have removed Piccadilly Tower from under construction as including it here stretches the definition of "Under Construction" to the point where it is just misleading. The only thing that ever happened on this tower was that the cleared the site. By all accounts planning consent expired a good 2.5-years ago at which point it doesn't really belong on the template at all.  I have left the other "on holds" for now as I don't know the details of these but can at least see from the pictures that something had start to come out of the ground.
At the same time I will flag up the "visions" section. Which looks suspiciously like a fantasy skyscraper section. Of these I have looked at:
* Vector Arena Tower – scheduled for completion in 2003. Described by Emporis as cancelled  
* Castlefield Quay Tower – proposed as a vision for at least 7 years. A quick check on Companies House suggests that developer is in receivership.
* Victoria Gateway – vision for at least 6 years. The best I can find is that it is actually in MB of Trafford rather than the city of Manchester.
If we are going to include every Skyscraper that has ever proposed in this section (the logical conclusion), it is soon going to be over-crowded with relatively un-notable schemes that were never likely to have been built even in the boom days. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had the same thoughts about Citygate Ecotower which I've been trying to update, but I've come to the conclusion that it was probably just an architect's idea looking for a backer. Not very notable, like many of these visions. Seaweed (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

text: The 'visions' (terrible name) section is just a list of speculative suggestions. Only two have articles, and neither seems to be proceeding. Pit-yacker's checks above show that many of these are just fantasy. As most of the entries are unverifiable and extremely unlikely to ever be built, I've simply removed the section. Buildings can be added once they at least apply for planning permission – which shows that they're a serious suggestion. Modest Genius talk 10:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What belongs on this template?