Talk:Merdeka 118

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

Infobox image[edit]

hello, i would like to change the image in the info box. is there any possible way for me to do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man akieym (talk • contribs) 07:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The image has already been changed. But if you want to upload an image into an infobox or anywhere else on Wikipedia, you first need to upload it onto Wikimedia Commons. More info is available on the site itself. PS that was my image of the building :) TerraGaming (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name?[edit]

They change the name of this project every other month. Now it seems to be renamed to Merdeka 118.--Renek78 (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suggest we move the page to Merdeka 118 instead of PNB 118. Just checking with others, is it fine to do so? N1k4Bl4z1ng (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense in my opinion Renek78 (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meters[edit]

It seems i should update with this https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=PNB_118#cite_note-22 for new evidence upgrade into 666 meters for the PNB 118. Hope you all agree. mr Rob 115.134.36.76 (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources[edit]

This is an discussion posted on another editors talk page talk. I have tried to help this editor regarding the dispute of the building height. I have posted this discussion here so other editors can see it and comment. Please read the information in the links regarding Wikipedia guidelines before commenting if you are new to Wikipedia. Thanks

Please refer to WP:RS and WP:BRD and WP:V. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) is the most reliable source for heights for buildings. Please go to their website and see that CTBUH is a member organisation which has as its members the architects, building companies, funders and other organisations that work together to build the structures shown on their website. This is why they are reliable because they source the height of buildings from these primary sources for information. Other sources are not as reliable. If you disagree you need to go to the talk page of the main article for the building in question and dispute my conclusion about the reliability fo CTBUH there. This allows other editors to comment and consensus to be reached. Please see WP:DR Robynthehode (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I been there like 10x visit their website and nothing changing there. Reliable sources is not only about CTBUH Or what. It's about to find the good and reliable evidence that they can find. what if in future that Readers especially malaysians who will read PNB 118 Height on wikipedia then they will check on other website offcials (more than 20 i guess) that it was 666 meter. the tower info was also Good Realible sources. please be tolerate about this ok. i am trying to help you too. i not against you or what but please be tolerate on others ok. (continue from 60.50.23.96)60.50.23.96 (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CTBUH height of PNB 118 has not changed because they don't have reliable evidence from their members that it has changed. It is about the most reliable source and CTBUH is it until it is proved otherwise. Have you read the links I asked you to? Here's another one that relates specifically to your news sources WP:NEWSORG. I don't think your sources are reliable. That is the dispute. Also Wikipedia is not about truth. Its about what can be shown by verifiable reliable sources. See WP:TRUTH. As editors we follow reliable sources and consensus. Please take this discussion to the talk page of PNB 118 and if you want to, ask for a request for comment from other editors (RfC). But please read the information at all the links I have posted here it will help you understand what Wikipedia is and is not - WP:NOT Robynthehode (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you keep In deniel on this. No one will listen to you. Im just a ametur guy who knows outside. What if Readers says wikipedian can't be trusted CBTUH and Keep spinning around. Again i am not against you. Just trying to reliase which can be trust.115.134.36.76 (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in denial about anything. And it is not about 'people' listening to me. I am just another editor trying to follow Wikipedia's procedures and guidelines. The content of Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Have you read any of the information in the links I have posted? You just don't seem to understand. I am giving you every opportunity and help to understand Wikipedia and you seem to be ignoring it. I will not be posting on your talk page again and have copied the above exchange on to the PNB 118 talk page so other editors can see. Robynthehode (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being asked to come here to comment the editor in this dispute persists in posting on his talk page. Here is the post:

Whatever, Cause if i didn't ignore it. The fact people might pissed off to wikipeida soon for malaysian. CTBUH IS not 100% Reliable just 80% for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.23.96 (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay you clearly do not understand or seem to want to follow Wikipedia polices and guidelines. Whether edit changes annoy other editors, specific people or the general populace in a country (although I can't see how you speak for all Maylaysians) isn't relevant. What is relevant is reliable sources and you and no other editor trying to change the height of these building has shown alternative reliable sources. The news sites you provided are not reliable. One of them had multiple factual errors in it. Of course CTBUH may be in error but until that is proved their statements of building heights are the ones used in Wikipedia generally and for those buildings that currently are the focus of this dispute here. Again please do not comment here. Go to the PNB 118 article talk page. Robynthehode (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like that, We're done ok. You win. We don't need to discuss again when CTBUH or whenever you like to trust. I just doing my job ok. Whenever people have update some good news i do it again. I don't want to face argue again. So i will leave someone to update some news. Thank you.60.50.23.96 (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't want to put you off editing Wikipedia but you must follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If you don't feel able to do that create your own website or blog about tall buildings in Malaysia. You can then post whatever you want to. But if you do edit Wikipedia again your job is to follow Wikipedia policy and altering anything in the articles in question without having reliable sources to back up the edits will result in those edits being reverted. I wish you well in further understanding how Wikipedia operates and hope you continue to edit responsibly. Robynthehode (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, Just no. Im not a good Sources finder as you are. As i said, Reliable sources won't help it out as someone might pissed of which one is real. You told yourself that find a reliable. Fact the Tower Info has good enough reliable. Please don't make an argue anymore. Cause you have experiance than i am. You know who you are and i would rather end this discuss. It's your call.175.142.130.6 (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay you are admitting a number of things in your post above. You are not good at finding sources. Your understanding of Wikipedia is not good because you think that the Wikipedia requirement of basing information in the encyclopaedia on reliable sources WP:RS can be ignored just in case 'someone might be pissed off'. If you think Tower Info is a reliable source provide that source here (I couldn't find the website in a quick look in google) and we can then discuss whether it is reliable or not. If you are not interested in having the sources you have found being scrutinised then the default position is for the article to only use CTBUH for building height. You can of course also make a 'Request for comment' WP:RFC from other editors. I may be wrong in my assessment and doing this may support your position. What would not be appropriate to do, however, is to change any of the heights listed for the buildings in this dispute before the issue of reliable sources is resolved. You may also like to read that disputes aren't about winning WP:WINNING Robynthehode (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just read it and You know why. Didn't mean to change height but the facts. https://thetowerinfo.com/buildings-list/merdeka-pnb-118/ 175.142.130.6 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supplying the link. This is a personal blog from a fan of skyscrapers. There are no sources shown in this blog and therefore no way to further verify if the information shown is accurate. See WP:V. Please see WP:RSSELF and WP:UGC for reasons why these type of sources are not seen as being reliable for the purposes of Wikipedia. If you have any other sources to discuss please post them here Robynthehode (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks, it is better you find yourself. Im gonna check some other things to do.175.142.130.6 (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change the rank to "High importance" for WikiSkyscrapers and WikiMalaysia[edit]

Placing this article under "Mid Importance" does not make any sense, especially when there are these few reasons:

  • - Tallest skyscraper constructed since 2010
  • - Second tallest building in the world
  • - Tallest building in Southeast Asia
  • - Tallest building in Malaysia
  • - Tallest skyscraper under construction since 2010
  • - First megatall in Southeast Asia
  • - One of only 5 megatalls in the world.
  • - Possibly one of the tallest skyscrapers that will be finished in a long time.

I'm not changing it now because this is a rather important article.

But if I get a consensus, then we can change it.

(PenangLion (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Height changes[edit]

According to an article from the New Straits Times (NST), the current height remains unreleased. Several schematics of the skyscraper suggests a height between 678 to 721 metres. It was also reported in the article that the height is believed to be closer to 700 metres.

(PenangLion (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Inspiration for name[edit]

In the intro, the article says the building's name "is inspired by" its proximity to two stadiums: Merdeka (which makes sense, it's the same name) and Negara. This is not elaborated on. As far as I can tell, "Negara" is not in the building's FULL name. The article on Stadium Negara makes no mention of it being partial inspiration for the building's name. And as far as I can tell, the source article linked after this statement does NOT claim the building's name was inspired by Stadium Negara but rather mentions the stadium is owned by the same state-owned corporation as is building Merdeka 118, that some people thought Stadium Negara was being torn down to build Merdeka 118, and that one of the people involved has the name Negara or something. SO HOW IS THE BUILDING'S NAME INSPIRED BY STADIUM NEGARA? 147.226.230.176 (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my knowledge, Stadium Negara was never related to Merdeka 118. The original name for the project was Warisan Merdeka, related to the Merdeka Stadium. Stadium Negara wasn't mentioned. There might be some mistakes. PenangLion (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox picture[edit]

I notice the Merdeka 118 infobox picture has been changed over and over again. Anyway I'm compiling a few of the tower's images on Commons which should be the lead picture InterEdit88 (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox picture choices[edit]

Cast your vote
  • Option 1 (Most recent image)
    Option 1 (Most recent image)
  • Option 2 (Current infobox image used by PenangLion uploaded by Azreey)
    Option 2 (Current infobox image used by PenangLion uploaded by Azreey)
  • Option 3
    Option 3

Option 1[edit]

  1. Since this is the picture taken from my phone. Also the picture is clearer. InterEdit88 (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2[edit]

Support – I believe this image is better suited for the article (even though it wasn't recent), because the image quality of this image is the best I could find for the skyscraper mentioned. Clarity and recency does not equate to quality. There is a reason why the best image of the Petronas Towers was shot in 2008 (15 years ago), because it was a great image. Cheers, gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3[edit]

InterEdit88 (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I would agree with you to just focus on a high quality image, even though it might be a little older. But on an active construction site - the mall at the foot of the skyscraper is far from being completed - it might be better to regularly update the info picture. Just my opinion. --Renek78 (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Merdeka_118&oldid=1207524760"