Talk:Central Park, Sydney

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sourcing the dimensions of the building.[edit]

At the moment there are two sources for the height of the building. Both of them agree that its height is 117 metres or 384 feet. (These are close enough for them to be thought of as equivalent in a non-technical context.) User:Speccy4Eyes has disputed putting the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH ) citation before the Business Insider citation that he provided in a previous edit. I believe that while the Business Insider reference may be acceptable as a backup, the CTBUH reference is superior.

  • CTBUH is a specialist technical website, so its data on technical details like the height of the building or the amount of floorspace are more likely to be reliable than a general business magazine.
  • The CTBUH web page for One Central Park gives a wealth of technical detail, such as the overall height of the building, the number of floors above and below ground, the area of floor space, the number of apartments and parking spaces and so on. This demonstrates that it is a superior reference for the height of the building and any other technical matters.
  • The Business Insider reference gave the height in feet. This in itself is anomalous, because the architect is French and Australia has used the metric system for building and architecture for decades. It is, of course, better to go for the measures that the building was undoubtedly drawn up in.
  • The display is metres first, so it makes no sense to quote the height in feet and then flip it back to metres when the original measurement was in metres.

I hope that this explains in detail why the CTBUH reference is superior and should be put first. Michael Glass (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original reference was adequate to provide the necessary verifiability. The addition of a second reference is therefore unnecessary (although I am happy to keep it as a redundant backup). It was another user who added the 'flip' command to the convert, to give metric as primary. I agree with that change, and MOSNUM recommends using the 'flip' command in such circumstances. I can see no convincing reason for the further change. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speccy, Read what I wrote above and then check out the web page for yourself. The reference you found is not as good as the reference I supplied. That alone is reason enough to justify making it primary. As it makes no difference to the display of units in the article I can't see why you are objecting, unless it is just an pretext to sneak in a reference to imperial measures. Michael Glass (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read what you wrote, it didn't convince me that there was a need for change as the values given are identical. However, as another editor has changed the article back, without even having the courtesy to give an explanation, I can see that discussion is worth less than brute force here, as elsewhere in Wikipedia, so I give up trying to reason this one through any more.
I note too that the three editors who have come to this article since me, and who have changed or reverted my edits, have followed me, or each other, here from the "discusion" about the exclusive use of metric on MOSNUM - I'll say no more. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I revert a vandal, I also check their recent contributions. Nothing personal, Speccy, but you're on a similar crusade against consensus. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pete, can you explain that one for me. There is no consensus, as far as I can see, for which source to use.
The edit sequence:
  1. I added the height info to the article (using the convert template to give dual units), from a good source, cited the source, and left it at that.
  2. Archon 2488 came along and flipped the units to show metric first - I didn't object to that, I could see his point.
  3. Michael Glass came along and changed the input to the convert template and inserted another source - the net result being no change to how the article read. He also started a discussion on the talk page.
  4. As Michael hadn't given any convincing reason for the redundant change (the article appearance wasn't changed), I restored the original input to the convert, and put the supporting source first again, on the basis that there was no consensus for that change. That left the article, basically as Archon edited it, showing metric first, and with the extra, redundant, source that Michael added.
  5. Michael then reverted me, still without consensus.
  6. I reverted back to the status quo, pending any consensus being reached.
  7. You then waded in, and without explanation, reverted back to Michael's edit - still without consensus, and without even adding to the discussion! What were you thinking???
When I questioned that edit, you came back, not with an explanation for why you thought Michael's edit was better, or to apologise for imposing your view prior to any consensus, but to throw in irrelevancies about how you deal with vandals, and the bad-faith accusation that I am "on a similar crusade against consensus"!
What consensus, what crusade? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Must all be in my mind, then. Look, brother, there's no conspiracy, there's nobody singling you out. We're just sticking to the rules and watching you try to argue that they mean something different to what everybody else thinks. Maybe in your eyes, the world uses Imperial units. But here in Australia, we use metric, and the sources I see for this building all use metric and you are paddling up a lonely creek. --Pete (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pete, as you haven't come up with any evidence of a consensus to change the convert input and the reference, or of a crusade, and as the facts speak for themselves against your inflammatory allegations anyway, I suggest you retract them. Then to compound the attack, you are now implying it's me, and not yourself, who is breaking the rules - unbelievable!
The article has shown metric since Archon's edit, and nothing that Michael Glass or myself has done since has changed that. The Australian reference that I supplied, cited from an Australian website, gives the height in feet - so much for your ignorant assertion that "in Australia, we use metric, and the sources I see for this building all use metric".
You need to read what others have written, double-check your facts and apologise for your hopelessly inaccurate assertions - if you are to regain any respect here. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm comfortable with my position. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pete, as you have refused to explain your (false) accusations, refused to accept that your assertions are wrong, and have not explained what you think your change is achieving or adding to the article, I have restored the status quo for now. If other editors can help resolve this, please do. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see that other editors heeded your call. The system works! --Pete (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Gareth's latest change, well the edit summary at least, I see that he agrees with Michael Glass's change, and gives his reason. Fot that reason, I concede that I am unlikely to able to persuade the two of them that the first source is equally good at making the tower height verifiable, so accept the change in good faith, as the current consensus. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that this controversy has been resolved. On reading the history above I find it bizarre that Speccy labelled others as editing without consensus. Consensus is not just the whim of one editor, but it represents the common feeling of most or all of the editors. That is what prevailed in this instance. Michael Glass (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for page protection[edit]

This is bizarre. Speccy4eyes changed the height convert template back to his preferred style (for the third time) and then immediately requested the page be protected, citing "edit-warring"! His edit has now been reversed by three different editors. --Pete (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, you were warring your preferred change in, without any good reasoning or consideration for consensus or the discussion that was ongoing and throwing around wild and unsupported accusations about me at the same time. I thought protection might bring you to the table. Events have overtaken me though, Gareth came to the rescue with a solid opinion, which although I disagree with, I accept as likely to carry the day. I've therefore cancelled my protection request and accept the change. Please pay a bit more attention to Wikipedia etiquette in future, and discuss your reasons before jumping in with two feet. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funny guy. WP:NPA is another policy you might usefully study. Good to see you accept the reality here. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Central Park, Sydney. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_Park,_Sydney&oldid=1200740072"