Revision as of 06:34, 20 August 2015 editSpeccy4Eyes (talk | contribs)505 edits →Sourcing the dimensions of the building.: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:36, 20 August 2015 edit undoSpeccy4Eyes (talk | contribs)505 edits →Sourcing the dimensions of the building.: moreNext edit → | ||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
I hope that this explains in detail why the CTBUH reference is superior and should be put first. ] (]) 04:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC) | I hope that this explains in detail why the CTBUH reference is superior and should be put first. ] (]) 04:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC) | ||
:The original reference was adequate to provide the necessary verifiability. The addition of a second reference is therefore unnecessary. |
: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. ] (]) 06:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:36, 20 August 2015
Australia: Sydney Start‑class | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Sourcing the dimensions of the building.
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)
- 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)