Talk:List of tallest buildings

Phoenix Towers addition

I'm not competent to edit the table of tallest buildings under construction, but that list should include the Phoenix_Towers_(China). Psychlohexane (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

No reference shows this building has begun being constructed. Therefore as only a proposed building it is not relevant to this list. See WP:CBALL

Sections clean-up

Here is the analysis of current sections:

• read - too short
• ranking criteria and alternatives - updated, long enough, well referenced
• tallest buildings in the world - updated, well referenced
• Photo gallery - not updated
• Alternative measurements
  • Height to roof - obsolete criteria, not updated, not referenced
  • Height to pinnacle - not updated, not referenced
• Buildings under construction - not updated, mostly referenced
• Buildings on hold - not updated, mostly referenced
• List by continent - updated, well referenced
• List of buildings with 100+ floors - just a link
• Proposed - not updated, not referenced
• Cancelled - unclear criteria, not updated, not referenced

My proposal is to remove Photo gallery (good for commons, not for wiki), Height to roof (not updatable, can be moved to separate article), List of buildings with 100+ floors (just a link), Proposed (incomplete, not referenced, crystalballish), cancelled (unclear criteria (difference to on-hold?), not updated, not referenced). Height to pinnacle section shold be shortened (400 m?) to better updatability), not sure about Buildings on hold section. Any comments ? --Jklamo (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with many of your recommendations. I do like the images, but gallery format is not idea. Perhaps they can be incorporated into the article? I will be bold with one change, I will get rid of the completely unreferenced proposed section, since it violates wiki's crystal ball policy. And move the List of buildings with 100+ floors to the see also since it's just a link. Will continue to look at your recommendations. Mattximus (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see an editor taking on this task. Thanks! My comments are: All tables should be limited to a set number of entries rather than an arbitrary height. Nobody asks 'What is the 112th tallest building in the world' But a list that goes up to say 100 for the 1st list and 75 for the pinnacle list would make more sense. Getting rid of the 'Proposed' section is essential, so to is the cancelled section. Are such sections included in any similar list articles? I would have to check but so many proposals have been made for many types of grand construction projects it makes it difficult to have any meaningful criteria for their inclusion (unless there is a significant source which makes the case). I personally like the photos as they show the variety in tall buildings but maybe fewer examples could be included in the article. Look forward to seeing changes if consensus is reached. Robynthehode (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no meaningful criteria for the inclusion of "proposed" or even "planned". They are all crystal balling, and I tried to remove them from most of these pages. I feel these lists should reflect what is actually real, not potential to be real. There is no hurry, they can be added if/when they are built. I personally prefer the images to provide a right aligned border to the lists in place of a gallery, but not sure if others agree. As for your recommendation of arbitrary height cut off, I'm indifferent, because your proposal of 100 is equally arbitrary. I think we made the key changes already. Mattximus (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with all proposed changes - was looking at List of tallest buildings in New York City today and note that it is of featured status. Maybe the pictures can be incorporated in the table like in that article? It helps for readers to immediately associate the building details with something they recognise. I also think limiting to the top 100 is neater than the current 300-metre cutoff (that's rapidly becoming too short anyway). My thinking is that this article should really set the standard for other articles, and can take a few things from the New York list to help with this. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah that photo format would be preferable to the current gallery format. I agree with all your comments. The only thing I disagree with from the New York article is that they include proposed buildings, which run afoul of wikipedia's crystal ball policy. Without that it is a nice model. Mattximus (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

My suggested cut off point is not equally arbitrary Mattximus. It is a reasonable suggestion to limit the size of the list. Height is far more an arbitrary criteria for the reasons I give above. No one asks 'What is the 112th tallest building in the world?' no matter what the actual height is. I would again suggest this is the limit to the list - number of entries rather than arbitrary height which no one searching for tallest buildings would know prior to their searchRobynthehode (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016

Tokyo Sky Tree should be listed as number 2 at a height of 2080 feet, and Tokyo Tower at spot 62 (or 63 after the Tokyo Sky Tree addition) with a height of 1092 feet, according to their respective heights listed by their own Wikipedia articles. Vocabularianrx (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Just need sources for this. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 22:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Both Tokyo Skytree and Tokyo Tower are towers, not skyscrapers. --Jklamo (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

What about : Milad Tower, 435 meters? Shouldn't it be there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.192.101 (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Future tallest / under construction

I propose to remove the under construction section in this article. There is already a list article called List of future tallest buildings. The list in this article is just duplication and means to lists have to be kept up to date rather than one Robynthehode (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Why does that article, namely List of future tallest buildings, include 17 entries for comparison that were already completed pre-2015? Shouldn't the table be updated every year so that, like a conveyor belt, entries for finished buildings are deleted to give way for newer ones? (Also, in addition to having "un-future" buildings, the list is woefully short, IMHO.) Titus III (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they need to be maintained and synchronized, and no we don't need redundant entries in either of them, just a cross-reference between them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move already carried out. And there seems to be consensus to move.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

---

List of tallest buildings in the world → List of tallest buildings – [This is a procedural filing, properly formatting someone else's RM that was opened without the RM template on 31 August.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)]
Suggest List of tallest buildings in the world --> List of tallest buildings. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Background:

• They were all changed after this.
• "List of tallest buildings in the world" appears to be the last one.

Is it worth the page move?

Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Please see WP:RM for how to open a proper requested move. I've put the correct template on it and refactored it into something like the usual format.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, SMcCandlish. I will keep that in mind and go that way in the future. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Opinions welcome

• Why? It seems to me that the present name is somewhat more informative about the content of the article. LynwoodF (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  Hi LynwoodF. I am not sure how it is more informative with " in the world" or less without it. Could you please explain? Thanks. Also, there was a mass page move about this before. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 52#Global superlatives.

  Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  Hello, Anna Frodesiak. If there is nothing to explain a superlative, my brain asks "Where?" or "When?", but expressions such as "in the world" or "in history" make it clear what is meant. As a British English speaker I prefer "in the world" after a superlative to "world's" before it, but both serve a purpose. I have had a look at the discussion you mention and it seems rather futile. LynwoodF (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  Hi LynwoodF. I think what "List of tallest buildings" means is clear by implication.

  As for that discussion seeming futile, I do not understand. Futile means "...having no result or effect : pointless or useless..." The discussion had the result of consensus. There was a point in that the superlative wasn't needed, and it was useful in that it ended with all those articles being moved. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  In my view, it achieved nothing worth achieving. Incidentally, nobody else seems interested in this discussion, but for the record I am voting against the proposal. LynwoodF (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  I respect your view, and you may be right. This is not a huge thing. It is just that this is the last remaining one. I will post at some Wikiprojects to get other opinions and leave it to others to decide. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  For things like this, the usual RM process is fine; there's not a wikiproject-specific reason this should have a divergent name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, SMcCandlish. For some reason, I always just keep it at talk and call for comments at wikiprojects. RM is a better plan. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: RM tends to lead to fewer "local consensus" and "echo chamber" problems, and better compliance with WP:AT policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• I am fine with either format, but, if we're going to keep the prepositional phrase, it should be changed to "List of tallest buildings on Earth". "...in the world" could be ambiguous: does it mean our world, Naboo, Pandora, The World of Ice & Fire? Obviously very, very few people will not know to which "world" it is referring, but for the sake of conciseness it should be "...on Earth" (if we keep the qualifier).--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 07:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly support moving it to List of tallest buildings. That qualifier is both redundant, and not encyclopedic. It actually sounds childish to add "in the world". Mattximus (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONCISE, per previous moves cited above, and for WP:CONSISTENCY with our standard list naming (e.g., it's List of countries by urban population not "List of countries in the world by urban population"; where else could they be located?). We can rename this article someday to be Earth-specific when we have mile-high skyscrapers on Mars. In the interim, we should look for more articles with redundant "in the world" or "on Earth" phrasing in their titles and move those also. Just because known ones were renamed once doesn't mean new ones with such titles haven't been created since then. PS: Agree with above comment that "in the world" is non-encyclopedic in tone.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom and SMcCandlish, nonencyclopedic. Randy Kryn 15:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support – not encyclopedic and there are no skyscrapers on Mars. Skyscrapers are only located on Earth, so it is redundant to add "in the world" per se. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 16:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONCISE. Citobun (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, there are quite a few of these "in the world" pages listed in the See also section of this article. A few have been already changed, but it seems most of them should be noncontroversial moves after this RM. user:Randy Kryn 16:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Randy. I think we got all the actual article names though, after this discussion. And how do we search for any more? Is there a wildcard thingy like "List of * in the world"? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, and nah, I moved two pages soon after writing that, and there seem to be more even on this pages See also list. Will go check on those and others from a couple of templates as well. Randy Kryn 21:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

...and just got about 10 more from the See also list and a template. They've multiplied. Randy Kryn 21:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, good work Randy. I am looking at your log actions now. I will paste an more I find here: User:Anna Frodesiak/Grey sandbox. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Found a couple more by typing "List" and "in the world" in the search box and then hitting Search instead of Go (now "List of longest ships" and "List of newspapers by circulation"). But what about World's largest cities and the entries in the side-template, should that be "Largest cities", which actually would slightly seem to be hanging there without the descriptor. Must be more tucked about somewhere. Randy Kryn 11:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Randy for moving the grey sandbox items. Good work again finding those others. I'd leave World's largest cities as it is probably not a non-controversial move. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. And no need for thanks, but I just got a ton more, including "List of world's largest ships by gross tonnage" (or at least eight or ten, didn't count them). They apparently do multiply. All of this occurred because you posted this RM, so thank you for doing that. Randy Kryn 12:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It was my idiocy that I first suggested these move via village pump and then a post here. Next time, it's RM. It works well. Cheers to you for all the digging and finding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Stratosphere

Is there a reason the Stratosphere is included in the list? It does not have continuously occupiable floors. Reywas92^Talk 22:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Removed entry for Stratosphere. It is indeed an observation tower and not a building according to the criteria for this articleRobynthehode (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hong Kong or China?

Should buildings situated in Hong Kong be classified with a Hong Kongese flag or a Chinese flag? Hong Kong is a semi-independent nation after all. --TheNk22 (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It is common practice in international rankings to differentiate between Hong Kong and mainland China due to the political autonomy and completely different context. Macao too. Citobun (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The column in the table says 'country' not 'autonomous region' or the like. China is the country not Hong Kong. Hong Kong is clearly shown in the column to the left so due reference is shown to where the building is. Whether it is 'common practice in international rankings' needs a source and a source that is relevant to a list in the same context as this one. There are many 'autonomous regions' (some of which that are also countries in the broadest sense of the term) in the world and any decision to use flags of such entities has implications across Wikipedia for similar list articles. What about Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England - rather than the UK? What about overseas territories of various countries etc etc. It starts to get complicated. Rather than simply countries as defined by say the UN Robynthehode (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at, say, the Economist, and see how reputable publications deal with it. Don't make Wikipedia the lone exception. 13:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong's political autonomy and completely different context only apply to things like GDP and life expectancy (aggregate statistics) where it doesn't make good a comparison to lump it with China. However, since when is political autonomy and completely different context apply where a building is located? For ease of use and not to drag unnecessary politics into a harmless list of infrastructure a UN definition which is simpler and widely accepted should be used.Terramorphous (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

List cut-off

With more new buildings the list is again too long to be maintained. I suggest another cut-off. 350m seems to be to most reasonable.--Jklamo (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2017

Can you change "Republic of China" to "Taiwan" please. Thank you. 206.116.28.46 (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

And from China to Hong Kong for the Hong Kong entries. Thank you. 13:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.73.73.143 (talk)

Not done: No reason for change given — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2017

203.106.152.105 (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing done, please tell us what change you propose. Arnoutf (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tallest buildings. 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/20101225004217/http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/tp/wo/ to http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/tp/wo/

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) 16:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

How many floors?

@Ronnie Yau: I notice you have made a number of changes to the number of floors, including this one. What sources are you basing these changes on?

This source, cited on Goldin Finance 117, gives the floor count as 117... which, presumably, is where the tower got its name.

Yaris678 (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2017

Footnote [C] is no longer relevant (presumably applied to North Korea's Ryugyong Hotel) 73.169.148.102 (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)