Talk:22 Bishopsgate: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:55, 19 August 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skyscrapers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Height

Recently it's proposed height was scaled down, meaning that it will be shorter than the Shard London Bridge, the article needs to be changed to reflect this, but I'm afraid I don't know the exact figures. Jamandell (d69) 11:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have permission from Union Investments to use an official rendering, but I don't know what image tags/information to use for uploading. Wikipedia seems to delete anything I attempt to upload... Wjfox2005 16:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will - someone may be deleting your images in preference of his "own" renderings. Chap in question is a known nuisance around here and we're working on a way to deal with him.

I work for the company that rendered this image, www.cityscape3d.com there are copyright issues with this image that i'm persuing within the company, however we should at least be referenced directly on the file attributes, not just through skyscrapernews.com Alastair 10:14, 25th July 2007

Better renders

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee370/ajaaronjoe/pinnacle3.jpg 86.164.103.135 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move back to Bishopsgate Tower. Rai-me 18:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

22-24 Bishopsgate → Bishopsgate Tower — Move was made without any discussion. Similar moves are also being discussed here, here, and here. —StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support - as per nomination. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the name is likely to change and names need standardising accross all building articles relating to skyscrapers in the uk. The postal address seems the most logical way of standardising names as it is not going to change over time.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Common name should be used unless a case for using systematic names over common names for buildings of this type is made and agreed. Andrewa (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As per nom. --203.220.171.83 (talk) 11:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. See my comments on the Tower 42 and Shard London Bridge talk pages. Wjfox2005 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Rai-me 16:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

See User talk:Andrewa/systematic names for some discussion on when and whether systematic names should take precedence over common names. This is another case in point. Andrewa (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

On Hold

I know "indefinitely on hold" is usually a stealth cancellation, but if the reason that the building's on hold is to make more space for offices in a redesign, then doesn't that mean its probably getting bigger rather than smaller? Also, Arab development firms aren't known for their restraint, the Burj Khalifa went bankrupt twice, got put on hold three times, and was eventually paid off by the sheikh himself with a loan from Saudi Arabia! I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens to this building, and it not only gets done anyway but gets done even bigger, maybe even higher than the shard. --70.106.148.11 (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->
+== On Hold ==
+I know "indefinitely on hold" is usually a stealth cancellation, but if the reason that the building's on hold is to make more space for offices in a redesign, then doesn't that mean its probably getting bigger rather than smaller? Also, Arab development firms aren't known for their restraint, the Burj Khalifa went bankrupt twice, got put on hold three times, and was eventually paid off by the sheikh himself with a loan from Saudi Arabia! I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens to this building, and it not only gets done anyway but gets done even bigger, maybe even higher than the shard. --[[Special:Contributions/70.106.148.11|70.106.148.11]] ([[User talk:70.106.148.11|talk]]) 04:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)