Talk:List of tallest buildings in Brisbane

message: The following list serves as a discussion point for proposed and cancelled buildings over 80m (~20 storeys) which are not at this stage featured on the article page. The current consensus is that they shall remain excluded, and further discussion on this issue is welcome below.-MyFavco (talk)
Project	Address	Developer	Description	Comments
	Empire Square		79 Elizabeth Street		Metacap 		240m	high	65	Storey	Hotel		Cancelled, site being re-leased.
	Meriton Tower #2		43 Herschel St		Meriton 		236m	high	73	Storey	Residential		Approved, construction may commence late 2009.
	Centapoint		133 Adelaide St		In-Sites		192m	high	45	Storey	Commercial		Application for DA has lapsed.
	549 Queen St		549 Queen St		Marvella		186m	high	60	Storey	Residential		Cancelled, site re-leased.
	King George Central		145 Ann St		Devine  		157m	high	39	Storey	Commercial		Approved, construction may start 2010.
	Daisho Tower		174 Ann St		Daisho Group		150m	high	34	Storey	Commercial		Proposed, awaiting approval. Unlikely to proceed.
	502 Adelaide St		502 Adelaide St		Malouf Family & DMHP		138m	high	44	Storey	Residential		Cancelled, site re-leased.
	Q Centre		159 Roma St		GPT     		136m	high	33	Storey	Commercial		Approvedm unlikely to proceed.
	Buranda Village		O'Keefe St	         		120m	high	32	Storey		Proposed, awaiting approval. May proceed in stages.
	French Quarter Commercial		111 Margaret St		Devine  		112m	high	26	Storey	Hotel		Approved, unlikely to proceed.
	Roma St Hotel		156 Roma St		Infinia 		103m	high	30	Storey	Hotel		Cancelledm site on sold.
	SilverPoint Towers		462-470 Queen St		Astor Hotel Motel Ltd		101m	high	31	Storey	Residential		Approved, unlikely to proceed.
	Union 		150 Milton Rd		FKP     		98m	high	32	Storey	Commercial		New proposal awaiting approval.
	Elizabeth Tower		40-46 Elizabeth St		Action Group		94m	high	27	Storey	Commercial		Proposed, awaiting approval.
       		111 Mary St		Devine  		94m	high	25	Storey	Commercial		Cancelled, site on-sold.
       		1 Parkside Bvd		FKP     		92m	high	25	Storey	Residential		Proposed, awaiting approval.
	Hogan Place		127 Charlotte St	         		85m	high	27	Storey	Residential		Approved, unlikely to proceed.
	Portal Tower 3		10 Breakfast Creek Rd		Watpac  		80m	high	16	Storey	Commercial		Proposed, awaiting approval.
 
===Discussion Regarding Inclusion of Proposed Buildings===
*This is in response to one editor's insistence on adding French Quarter Tower 1. This article has had all uncompleted buildings that are not under construction/on hold (and those must have up to date and reliable sources attached) removed. This is in lieu of removing all uncompleted buildings. The current consensus is that all proposed, approved, speculative and possible buildings do not belong in this article. Their status and viability can change too quickly and these buildings can never eventuate at all. If the aforementioned editor wishes to discuss this consensus further, it would be encouraged. However, please do this prior to reverting the current consensus. MvjsTalking 12:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the only article that includes not-yet-completed buildings. Most, if not all, of the best tallest buildings lists of cities and countries around the world on Wikipedia have one or more sections on under-construction, approved or proposed buildings. If you strongly feel that this article should not include them, then you should also strongly feel none of the others should. If this is the case, take it to the Wikiproject. --timsdad  (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, this page has only included Under Construction and Completed buildings for some time now. Are you suggesting a section for Proposed Buildings should be added? MyFavco (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was merely pointing out that some other articles have sections on different combinations of those three statuses. However, if there is enough referencing for a proposed section I can't see why the article can't have one. It's not essential, only if someone wants to bother going about listing them. --timsdad  (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Buildings in Brisbane

message: *This is in response to one editor's insistence on adding French Quarter Tower 1. This article has had all uncompleted buildings that are not under construction/on hold (and those must have up to date and reliable sources attached) removed. This is in lieu of removing all uncompleted buildings. The current consensus is that all proposed, approved, speculative and possible buildings do not belong in this article. Their status and viability can change too quickly and these buildings can never eventuate at all. If the aforementioned editor wishes to discuss this consensus further, it would be encouraged. However, please do this prior to reverting the current consensus. MvjsTalking 12:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the only article that includes not-yet-completed buildings. Most, if not all, of the best tallest buildings lists of cities and countries around the world on Wikipedia have one or more sections on under-construction, approved or proposed buildings. If you strongly feel that this article should not include them, then you should also strongly feel none of the others should. If this is the case, take it to the Wikiproject. --timsdad  (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, this page has only included Under Construction and Completed buildings for some time now. Are you suggesting a section for Proposed Buildings should be added? MyFavco (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was merely pointing out that some other articles have sections on different combinations of those three statuses. However, if there is enough referencing for a proposed section I can't see why the article can't have one. It's not essential, only if someone wants to bother going about listing them. --timsdad  (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion Regarding Inclusion of Proposed Buildings

message: Please use the To-Do List above for any items you believe require attention. Discuss freely ideas for other changes which require consensus.-MyFavco (talk)
:I believe there are several changes that could improve this article. Firstly, while skyscraperpage.com does have a bit of information on skyscrapers, it is not nearly as accurate or detailed as the Emporis database. I believe it would be useful to separate the list out into 'complete', 'under construction', 'approved' and 'proposed'. Furthermore, the height figures should be shifted into meters, and perhaps a use of the building should be stated (office, residential, hospital etc) There is no real use in having every building above 35m (the skyscraperpage and emporis definition of a skyscrapers) listed, so perhaps and arbitrary limit of 90m should be used. $eti 05:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Changes

message: All the red links need sources lest they be removed on the grounds of WP:V. I'm not sure it serves any purpose to have proposed and planned buildings listed either. - Shiftchange (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Red links

message: The image :Image:EMPSQ.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:EMPSQ.jpg

message: As other editors have previously suggested, there are some serious WP:V concerns about this article. This article (in addition to the articles about the actual towers) have very few, if any sources. Several of the towers listed in the proposed and under construction section are now put on an indefinite hold or have been cancelled completely.  Vision Brisbane and Trilogy Tower's future is now seriously in doubt and that'd be the case with quite a few of the towers listed in the under construction/proposed/approved sections. I am being WP:BOLD and removing all towers in the aforementioned sections per WP:CRYSTAL but would support them being re-added one by one with reliable sources that specifically back up what the article is claiming. SkyScraperCity is not a reliable source - it's a forum. MvjsTalking 22:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns 

message: 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 13:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of tallest buildings in Brisbane. 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/20101012224834/http://www.skyscraperlife.com:80/queensland-main-forum/9983-approved-regent-hilton-wintergarden-redevelopment-40f-158m-office.html to http://www.skyscraperlife.com/queensland-main-forum/9983-approved-regent-hilton-wintergarden-redevelopment-40f-158m-office.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 09:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified