Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester

Orphaned references in List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "emporis.com":

• From List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester: "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 20 August 2014. Retrieved 2014-08-18. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
• From List of tallest buildings in Europe: "Polat Tower Residence, Istanbul on". Istanbul /: Emporis.com. Retrieved 2012-07-08.
• From List of tallest residential buildings: "The Marina Torch". Emporis Corporation. Retrieved 17 February 2010.
• From List of tallest buildings in the Philippines: http://www.emporis.com/city/makati-philippines/all-buildings
• From List of tallest buildings in the European Union: GmbH, Emporis. "La Muratella, Rome - 256356 - EMPORIS". Retrieved 26 December 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221193213/http://www.byrominfo.com/ to http://www.byrominfo.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Name of city centre?

The references to buildings in the Greengate area talk about it being in central Manchester when it isn't in Manchester at all but the City of Salford.

The city centre straddles both Manchester and Salford, rather then just edit everything to be technically correct is there a better terminology to refer to the Manchester/Salford city centre region? Heptalion67 (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Ramada mixup

The list includes the (Ramada) Renaissance hotel on Deansgate / Blackfriars street but shows a picture of the former Jarvis/Ramada hotel in Piccadilly currently trading as Mercure. The latter is fairly tall itself and a prominent building so should probably be included as well.92.200.216.178 (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion criterion

As the list size here is getting excessive, making the article harder to maintain, I increased the inclusion criterion to keep it manageable. I received a thankyou for that edit so clearly I'm not alone in thinking this way. This has since been reverted with the objection,

As discussed in the talk page, this list represents Greater Manchester and therefore we agreed to keep the minimum heights to 50 metres to allow representation and information for various towns that make up the area.

After trying to find where this agreement occurred it turns out that it was just a comment by the editor on a featured delisting. This does not demonstrate consensus on this point, and I think it's worth sorting out.

We are already at 162 lines in the completed list alone, and at the rate of construction in Greater Manchester that is increasing rapidly. The change of the inclusion criterion to 75 metres was actually already a compromise on my part. I think it would be better to push it to 100 metres as is common with the lists of cities with a similar scale to Manchester.

I appreciate the desire to give all of Greater Manchester representation however, but a low inclusion criterion on the main lists is a poor way to do it. Do we really need to list hundreds of non-notable buildings across Comp/UC/App/Pro? There are other ways, for instance we could have a list of the top 3 tallest buildings by borough; that way we have a relatively static list of 30 entries where only a couple of boroughs are going to experience much editing.

So I propose we move to a 100 metre inclusion criterion in the main lists, with a separate list of the top 3 tallest buildings by borough (without a height limit). ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Collapsible table for 50-89 m tall buildings

I'm a fairly frequent editor to this article and noting the section above from ChiZeroOne from almost two years ago, decided to try and hopefully improve the article's readability by splitting the 'Completed' table into buildings that are 90 m or taller (which totals 26 - much more manageable I thought) and a collapsible table with the remaining long list of buildings that are 50-89 m tall. At this stage I didn't want to delete any information on the latter, as a lot of work has gone into that by other editors. More than happy to accept more user-friendly alternatives, this really was a trial on my part to be Bold! Mmberney (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

After a bit more thought, I've increased the minimum criterion to 100 m for the first table, as suggested in the previous section, so it's more in common with other similar lists of tall buildings. Mmberney (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Holiday Inn Manchester is in the White tower

In the list, Holiday Inn Manchester in Salford Quays is listed as a separate building, but it's actually in the White Tower (you can see it in the White tower's image). Do you think these two should be merged? Valienne (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Valienne, yes, if that's the case agree that Holiday Inn Manchester should be omitted from the list as a separate entry and perhaps just add something along the lines of "Includes the Holiday Inn Manchester hotel" to the Notes column for White Tower? Mmberney (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

New Manchester United stadium - include the roof-supporting 'masts'?

Opening discussion before simply excluding the proposed new Manchester United stadium from this list. The use of the word 'masts' in the media may well have added to the confusion as to whether or not they should be considered in the overall height (reportedly 200 metres (660 ft)). Although telecommunication masts and antennas are excluded from tallest buildings and structures lists, in this case the masts/towers would be holding up the stadium's roof, so are part of its structure and surely therefore part of its architectural height? Mmberney (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Unbuilt buildings section

Given the significant number of buildings listed in the "Unbuilt" section that were to be 50 metres or taller, I'm proposing to delete all of the entries that were <100 metres, which would bring the number down from 77 rows to a much more reader-friendly 25. This section will only continue to swell in future given the level of proposed development in Greater Manchester. Will give the matter a full week for any other editors to comment here before the task is undertaken. Mmberney (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Mmberney, hope you are well. I think this is an interesting question. Looking at the equivalent pages of other cities (London, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool) then they all build this section to 100 meters only (with the exception of Liverpool which doesn't have this section at all). This would point to the fact that it would be sensible for Manchester to do the same. The benefits would be that it would help to tidy the overall page up a little which is (for good reason) already a little long, assuming that this section is not of the largest interest to readers and it will also make it easier for future editors to maintain.

However one argument against this is that this section is quite complete - I edited originally based on the comprehensive Emporis lists of the time and have maintained it over time. Therefore it would be a shame for that effort to go and now that Emporis is no longer, there is no longer an active source that I am aware of that will give this detail. Therefore, perhaps my bias here doesn't make me the best person to make the decision.

So ultimately, I will leave the decision to you - both decisions are very valid. If kept, then to tidy up the section I can significantly reduce the 'notes' text to make the section shorter. Or we could do the easier way and already delete up to 100 meters and also reduce the 'notes' section.

As an extra note, if we update this section to 100 meters, I would not suggest this is a precedent to reduce other sections to 100 meters for the arguments that have been given when this has also been suggested in the past - this page represents all of Greater Manchester and not just the skyscrapers of the city core.

Keen also to hear your thoughts. ChrisClarke88 (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Completely understand where you're coming from ChrisClarke88; a lot of time and effort has gone into this article (not forgetting the former List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford). I suppose I'm looking at things from the perspective of overall readability and usefulness - it's probably less likely that someone will be looking for an unbuilt proposal unless it was going to be significantly tall and was therefore comparatively notable (e.g. Quay Street Tower or Intercontinental Tower). Some of that information has no doubt been included for a long time, but the ongoing expansion of the article warrants the occasional reconsideration of its content, I feel.

I do agree with your suggestion about streamlining the text within the Notes; that will certainly help 'debulk' the tables (in many cases, deleting the repeat of the buildings' names will assist there?). So with that, I'll opt for deleting the Unbuilt entries up to 100 metres and also reduce the Notes throughout the rest of the article.

Also agree about not setting a 100-metre height cut off precedent for the other tables. As you say, it's an article covering all 10 boroughs, not just two cities. Mmberney (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)