Talk:List of tallest buildings

HONG KONG IS NOT A COUNTRY BUT A CITY OF CHINA

Hong Kong is not a country but a city of China, so under "COUNTRY" you should write CHINA.--79.144.102.242 (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I added a header to separate your new question from the previous one. Astronaut (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before and will probably be discussed many more times too (see Talk Page Archive 3 for the last time it happened on this page). Occasionally some Chinese nationalist with a point to prove will convert all mention of "Hong Kong" to add "Peoples Republic of China" or the PRC flag. A short while later a Hong Kong nationalist will change it back and so an edit war will start. It'll go back and forth a few times, everyone's time will be wasted, and nothing will get decided. Eventually one side will lose patience and get themselves blocked from editing or will give up entirely. What is slightly unusual this time is the half-hearted attempt. If you are going to start this kind of thing, try to do a proper job and don't leave the article inconsistant. Astronaut (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem here isn't the Chinese nationalists, but the HKG nationalists with a point to prove (see below). --IJBall (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I am from SPAIN, and I have never been in China, but it is OBVIOUS that if you write "TALLEST BUILDINGS BY COUNTRY", then the word used has to be CHINA, not Hong Kong which is just a Chinese city as anybody knows. Whatever people say is not relevant as far as facts are taken into account. Hong Kong is right now a city of CHINA. That is out of discussion.--88.1.244.26 (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
You can solve the problem easily writing about the tallest buildings in the World just by CITY, not by country. Otherwise it is ridiculous, because then you would have to write NEW YORK....Country: NEW YORK. It is not a question of debate that Hong Kong is part of China as everybody knows it is, and as any serious Encyclopedia says.--88.1.244.26 (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read all the previous discussions (on this page's talk archives, and other pages too). As I said, it has been discussed at great length with no clear consensus. Astronaut (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

...and please do not vandalise the article by removing column headings. Astronaut (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You should read an Encyclopedia to know where is Hong Kong...--193.152.161.116 (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course we all know where Hong Kong is - an island just off the coast of China, was part of the British Empire until 1997 and is now a Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China which operates under One country, two systems. Just saying this has been discussed many, many times before and no clear consensus has come out of it for this article or any other article. Astronaut (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

But even you agree that there is no discussion about the COUNTRY: CHINA. That is out of discussion.--79.146.242.195 (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The appropriate solution is to change to column heading from "Country" to "Country/Region" (or "Country/Area") then, if editors on this page want to leave the HKG flag up. Because most of the posters to this thread are in fact correct - if the column heading is just "Country", then the flag must China's, by definition (i.e. List of sovereign nations). --IJBall (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a poor solution. Adding region will invite discussion as what is a "region", and we really don't want to fix this problem with Hong Kong by creating a bigger problem where people add New York, or New York City. I've reverted you change until consensus can be reached. Astronaut (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Astronaut, understood, but it is worth pointing out that this is how at least one other Wiki page (e.g. List of countries by tax rates) handles this issue - a legend can always be added to the top of the page defining what the column heading means. But I'm strongly of the opinion that either the column heading says "Country" so than China must be listed (by definition, from List of sovereign states), or if editors want HKG listed then some "modifier" must be placed on the column heading (e.g. "Country/Region", or something similar to that). Another possible compromise would be to leave "Country" as the heading, and go with something like "PRC, HKG" or "PRC (HKG)" or whatever will work so that sorting is not "broken". --IJBall (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong is not a sovereign state but it is a country for international comparisons: whether you're discussing countries of origin of goods, or making travel plans to different countries, or comparing GDP or similar. See country for the definition. As an example Scotland and Wales are considered to be countries but have far less autonomy and independence than Hong Kong.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

John, the List of sovereign states controls this issue - if you're on that list, you're a "country"; if you're not on that list, you're something else. Any other interpretation would, to my mind, violate WP:Neutral point of view. And, otherwise, yes, places like Wales and Scotland would require their own entries as well. Now, if people want to leave HKG on this list, that's fine. But, if they do, the column heading can't read just "country" - it'll have to read something else. That's the fair compromise. --IJBall (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

By equating sovereign states and countries, and by excluding 'something else', you're already pushing for your own POV. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Back to Astronaut: would "Country/Territory" be a preferable column heading solution to you? --IJBall (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I really have no solution to offer. I just know that changing the column header could create a problematic situation; and that whatever you put next to Hong Kong, somebody won't be happy and will eventually come here and change it. The archive on this talk page and the talk page of many similar articles is testament to the difficulty with this issue. Most involved editors eventually come to the same feeling as me, that the issue will never be resolved an would rather just try their best to minimise the disruption such edit wars cause. Astronaut (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

FTR, that is exactly what I am trying to do here. The original posters to this thread are correct - "Country" is a word with a very specific connotation. The best solution to allow for the inclusion of HKG, while still not antagonizing the PRC crew, would seem to be to add some word "qualifier" to "Country". Otherwise, if left as "Country", I'm going to have to come down on the side of excluding HKG, on the grounds of word meaning and WP:Neutral point of view.

If no further objections are leveled here, I'd like to change that column heading to "Country/Territory", so that this page can craft a solution similar to the List of countries by tax rates. --IJBall (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

But country is appropriate precisely as it's unspecific. The specific term for e.g. a UN member would be sovereign state. Sovereign states are also called countries but they're not the same thing. Country is much broader and less specific so appropriate here. I've already mentioned Scotland and Wales; another country that appears in this list but is not a sovereign state is Taiwan, and there are many more.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so what the preamble says on the country page is probably not relevant. Second, as is clear even from the Wikipedia entry on country there is a strong correlation with "sovereign state" (e.g. the whole latter part of that article). (Taiwan is a very special case, completely unique, even in the List of sovereign states... Meanwhile, Scotland and Wales are not included in this table, so not sure they're relevant.) Again, in my view, leaving the column heading as "Country" is unnecessarily antagonistic (and is a very one-sided "resolution" to the issue), and seems to be an attempt to confer on HKG status it doesn't have. Finally, what are you going to say when someone invokes "One country, two systems" here. Again, the appropriate solution is some kind of compromise column heading, a la List of countries by tax rates. --IJBall (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right, WP is not a dictionary, but that is meant primarily to exclude articles that consist only of definitions of words. WP is an encyclopaedia, with articles on topics, not words. But that does not make it less accurate. Parts of country concerns sovereign states but only parts as you note – that's not the only meaning. As for one country, two systems it's a direct translation of the chengyu 一国两制, a slogan devised by the communist leadership, so is both POV and loses a lot in translation and so certainly not a useful guide as to how to use words in English.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Including HKG under "country" is a clear POV issue as well. Hence the need for a compromise. --IJBall (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2014

It's a list of the world's tallest buildings and the CN Tower isn't even mentioned, yet there are building half its size mentioned on the list? As a proud and fact loving Canadian I would like to see its facts up on this page. 99.235.25.160 (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - please read the explanations above - Arjayay (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2014

The list items are misnumbered. There's four buildings with the rank 91, but they are followed by a #94. Same goes for the 229 ranks, there's three of those followed by a 231. Underyx (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently there's more: the rank 14 is completely missing, and a 109 follows two 108s. Underyx (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm guessing it is because those buildings are all tied with the same height. Please be more clear with what you think needs fixing. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Just look at the list, it's obviously wrong. Check ranks 14, 94, 109, 231 against Ranking#Standard_competition_ranking. 2001:4898:80E8:ED31:0:0:0:2 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I... I... what? Huh? Sources? Am I required to find a scientific paper that says the number 14 comes after 13, not 15? Can someone else look at this edit request instead? The problem really shouldn't be difficult to see, and I don't know how this could possibly be explained any better. Underyx (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the request that the buildings be renumbered. Current order is .. 12, 13, 15.. but 14 is missing. Sources: "14 is the natural number following 13 and preceding 15" "14 (number)", Wikipedia (english), retrieved April 04, 2014 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help). The specific request is that building order be renumbereItd so as to include natural numbers, excepting that where there is a tie the appropriate number of spaces in the natural ordering is skipped. Other places where there are numbering issues are at *current* positions 14, 94, 108 and 231. Utunga (talk)

The reason #14 is missing, at least, is that the previous entry in the #14 spot was removed without changing the rankings: [1]. I don't know what the correct rankings are supposed to be, but the rankings currently given on the page are inconsistent, which is what Underyx is pointing out. —Bkell (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Seems to simply be a complaint that the order is 90, 91, 91, 91, 94 and 107, 108, 108, 110 and 229, 229, 231. Those are what are know as ties in height, so they are all the same number and the next numbers get skipped until all of the buildings are accounted for. If there are missing numbers, then it means that someone inappropriately removed an entry and it is your job as the requester to dig through the edit history and say please restore the building removed in {{Diff|List_of_tallest_buildings_in_the_world|diff number|oldid number|Revision as of ##:##, ## Mon YYYY}}. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Please check the list? The order is not that. You're saying the order is

90, 91, 91, 91, 94 and 107, 108, 108, 110 and 229, 229, 231.

but it actually is

90, 91, 91, 91, 91, 94 and 107, 108, 108, 108, 110 and 229, 229, 229, 231.

please tell me you're seeing it now. Also, #14 on the list was removed as it was (and still is) under construction. Therefore, the removal was legitimate. Bkell linked to the diff of this above. Underyx (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I was just hoping someone else would do this because it's mindnumbing and I kept making errors when I tried. Getting on it. Cannolis (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks Underyx. Sorry Cannolis, I was working on this before you posted! (Mind-numbing indeed.) Someone may want to double-check my work. Cheers, LittleMountain5 19:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah actually just got an edit conflict. I think it's right, I actually completely missed that 14 was skipped and just spent like 5 minutes trying to figure out where ours differed. Cannolis (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the fix, Little Mountain 5! Underyx (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It has always been the case with this list that buildings of equal height have equal rank. Therefore numbering like 90, 91, 91, 91, 91, 95 95, 97, 98 is to be expected. The big problem is that some lazy editors tend to insert a building and either don't bother with any renumbering or only renumber as far as they can be bothered to do it. You only need a few of those edits and throw in a bit of vandalism, and the numbering quickly gets out of step with the rules. Looking back at the talk page archives, this has been mentioned several times before - with one discussion leading to me leaving a note to editors about the rules. Astronaut (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Buildings Underconstruction

There are still three buildings in the under construction list that said they finished last year, does anybody know anything about these three so as to add them to the main list or push back their completion date? Guyb123321 (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

roof of Burj Khalifa

It is listed as 828 m in the "Height to roof" section. However, its own article's infobox has "Top floor" with "584.5 m". I thought they should be the same, or possibly height of the floor added to the figure. If it is indeed correct, I suggest "highest floor" list be added to the article. 82.141.73.182 (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It does not mean that inside the highest floor of Burj Khalifa, the ceiling is over 200 m above the floor; there is a substantial, architecturally important, spire above he top floor. Remember that what is written in Wikipedia articles is not about your or anyone else's opinion, but what is verifiable in reliable sources. Many of the reliable sources used to write the Burj Khalifa article agree that the highest architectural point is 828 m while the highest (occupiable) floor is at 584.5 m.

Note however, height to roof was dropped as an official statistic by the CTBUH in November 2009. Perhaps the list on this article should be renamed, since the "Height to roof" section actually lists the "Highest architectural point". Astronaut (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2014

111.119.180.122 (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Karachi Port Trust 117floors

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mz7 (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done Karachi's Port Tower Complex is only a proposal according to CTBUH and Emporis - both reliable sources. Therefore it doesn't get to appear in this list. Astronaut (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Guangzhou's Canton Tower is not listed.

Canton Tower was the world's highest building from 2009 August to 2011.