Talk:List of tallest buildings in Melbourne

message: I'm about to replace all the hardcoded navigation boxes to the next taller and shorter building on each Melbourne skyscraper article with a template: it doesn't make sense to me that there should be all that markup sitting in the articles duplicated. invincible 15:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation Template 

message: I've noticed that in this article and in Eureka Tower's own article, various anonymous editors have been altering the tower's floor count to 92 without any sources. I've described this in a bit more detail at Talk:Eureka Tower#Floor count dispute. I'd like to discuss this matter with the editors who have been editing the floor count, as I understand, there are different ways to interpret the floor count (does the basement count? Or the open rooftop parapet?) invincible (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   your answer...it don't get any more clear than that :) MelbourneStar1 (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eureka Tower floor count 

message: Hello all,
I was the one who made the table on the "Major Future Projects" section of the article, yes it's a bit of a change, but it took me over 5 hours to do, and I did it at the best of my ability. These projects are real. I found them on SkyscraperCity with sources from SkyScraperCity forum and Grollo Melbourne (Dec 2010). Feel free to update this table, and feel free to put cancelled projects into a simmilar table. 
I did this because those original proposals were out of date, with few that didnt even exist :)
Feel free to contact me on my talk page, if there are any problems or issues with my edit :)
Thankyou!
MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Future Projects 

message: I have shortened the list (completed and proposed lists) to only list buildings above 150 metres in height. This is due to the list exceeding 65 spots - and there being currently more than 40 proposals between 100-150 metres in height. The shortened list has 25 buildings over 150 metres in the completed section - and another 20 in the proposed section. -- MST☆R    (Merry Christmas!) 03:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  100 metre+ v. 150 metre+ 

message: The Melbourne page is inconsistent with other AU building pages as it marks the cm on many projects. So I suggest rounding up/down the height numbers and have done so. It is much cleaner this way. Though I have left the "buildings over 200m" graphic untouched. UnbreakableMass (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Rounding up/down the height numbers

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 13:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Re 's recent edits. I'm not sure what you're trying to do (as you're not using an edit summary for any of your edits). Your adding in content that is either outdated, or false. For example:
* 280 Queen Street is cited as "vision", yet you list it as approved. That was years ago, it hasn't proceeded and now CTBUH lists it as "vision".
* Magic is cited as "vision", yet you list it as approved. I don't recall it being approved anywhere, so I'm not too sure where you've got that from. Irrespective, this wasn't a real proposal -- it was a concept.
* 383 La Trobe Street, again, cited as "vision", yet you list it as approved. Developers haven't proceeded with the project and CTBUH lists it as "vision".
Secondly, per Wikipedia:Citing sources: please stick to the current referencing style or seek to change it on the talk page. Great that you're adding sources, however, this referencing style is different to the hundreds of existing references: Ministerial planning applications - City of Melbourne . 2020. Ministerial planning applications - City of Melbourne . [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/building-and-development/planning-and-building-services/planning-applications/Pages/ministerial-applications.aspx. [Accessed 19 September 2020].. In fact, I don't think I've seen such referencing style on Wikipedia. Regardless, the referencing style this list follows is: "Ministerial planning applications". City of Melbourne . retrieved 19 September 2020.. 
I'll try to restore the parts of your edits which were correct, but if you could in future take this on board that would be good. If there's anything you need help with, please let me know, I'm happy to help. —MelbourneStar☆talk 02:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 710 Collins Street was proposed 6 years ago, it's now listed as "vision". Secondly, you're still adding the wrong formatting for references. Please use the consistent referencing identified above. If you need help, please respond. —MelbourneStar☆talk 09:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated content