Talk:List of tallest buildings

Skyscrapers B‑class Top‑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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

One - Two -

Canton Tower & Milad Tower

The Canton Tower is not a building, it is a structure/tower. It should be removed from this list (it can be instead placed in List of Tallest Structures, but not Buildings. Same with the Milad tower which is listed in the 2nd list about roof heights. Neither of these buildings have continuous occupied floors which is the requirement for this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.140.159.9 (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings by year?

Is there such a list on Wikipedia? Shouldn't there be one? like "from 1869-1888, this building was the tallest in the world", etc... -- megA (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a history section in the List of tallest buildings and structures in the world, however, this is for both buildings and structures. Is this similar to what you are suggesting, but obviously just for buildings? --timsdad ^(talk) 07:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That's exactly what I meant. Thank you for pointing me to it, although it's of course a different thing from a list of buildings... actually, it seems to me the only difference is the inclusion of the Pyramids, the Washington Monument, and the Eiffel Tower. Maybe this could change the field in those years. -- megA (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Pearl Tower (dongfangmingzhu)

Shouldn't the Oriental Pearl Tower in Shanghai be on this list? It's 1,535 feet tall, at least according to the wikipedia article. (there seems to be some argument to this point since some of that is made by the spire) The article for the tower itself is also erratic about how it stacks up in the tallest towers in the world. You might want to check it out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.142.1 (talk, 00:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, however the Oriental Pearl Tower is considered a tower and not a building as it is not continuously habitable. Lists for non-building structures are given in the lead section of this article. More of this is explained in greater detail at List of tallest towers in the world. In that list you'll find all the tallest towers, such as Guangzhou TV Tower, CN Tower and Ostankino Tower. --timsdad ^(talk) 01:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Basis for this Article

It has been suggested by a user that the criteria shown on Wikipedia should publish the criteria of CTBUH, and set the tallest buildings list based on the official CTBUH list. (Revised as summary)

These are all suggestions, and are subject to open discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenadriannechua (talk • contribs) 14:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the content of this article already fit the criteria from the CTBUH? They consider topped-out buildings to be completed, as they have reached their final height. This is why buildings such as Burj Dubai, the International Commerce Centre and the Nanjing Greenland Financial Center are all in the completed list. The Ranking criteria and alternatives section clearly outlines the Emporis and CTBUH standards, both organisations measuring to the highest architectural element in the primary rankings. I fail to see how the article does not comply with these standards. --timsdad ^(talk) 14:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint, but I was referring to the fully completed building rankings and officially ranked by CTBUH.

Sky Tower

Why is Sky Tower (Abu Dhabi) listed but Sky Tower isn't? It certainly ranks among the tallest on this list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland's Sky Tower is a tower, rather than a building or skyscraper, as it is not continuously habitable. More in-depth explanations can be found in this article and in the List of tallest buildings and structures in the world article. --timsdad ^(talk) 05:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incheon and DMCLB

I have begun this discussion to try and sort out the differences between both Softjuice and Jerchel. They have both been temporarily blocked after their recent edit war on this article. Jerchel has been removing the Incheon Towers and the Digital Media City Landmark Building from the under-construction section, claiming that CTBUH and SkyscraperPage sources are needed to confirm they have indeed broken ground. Might I inform him that a World Architecture News article is plenty reliable enough to confirm DMCLB's groudbreaking and an article released by the firm building the Incheon Towers is surely reliable enough also. Neither Emporis, SkyscraperPage nor CTBUH have any info that can confirm these two buildings are under construction, and that's why I'm still having doubts and is the basis for Jerchel's argument. --timsdad ^(talk) 02:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to point out that there is no word on Wikipedia that says that one source is "more serious" than the other as Jerchel claims, which is the basis for his continued removal of these buildings. This is essentially a WP:POV and a matter of personal belief, that Emporis, SkyscraperPAge or CTBUH are any more reliable than World Architecture News or other websites - All of them report the same news from the developers of these projects. In other words, the developers are the original source of the news, and therefore the most reliable.

For the Incheon Towers, we have words from two of its developers and builders confirming it is under construction. First and foremost, the main developer of this project, Portman Consortium, has issued a press release about ground breaking on 25th June 2008: PORTMAN CONSORTIUM BREAKS GROUND ON 151-STORY TOWER IN SOUTH KOREA and the same news is published by CTBUH's own website, a source that Jerchel claims is a "more serious" source: Portman Consortium Breaks Ground on 151-Story Tower in South Korea. Second is the building's structural designer, Thornton Tomasetti announcing the same news: Thornton Tomasetti-Engineered Tower Breaks Ground in South Korea. In addition, there are many well-known international websites further confirming that construction started with ground breaking on June 2008. GlobeSt, a real estate website, confirms the building is under construction: Consortium Breaks Ground for 151-Story Tower and Engineering News Record also confirms the same news: South Korea Enters Race With Start of 567-Meter Tower. Now, the height of the towers have obviously been increased to 610m in 2009 but this doesn't compromise its under construction status. Unlike other skyscrapers, Incheon Towers is actually being built on a completely reclaimed land, so that land is being dried from sea water first and essentially that process was completed last year before ground breaking.

The DMC Landmark Building is a far more recent project than the Incheon Towers - and this time, the developers aren't internationally well-known names like Portman or Tomasetti. It's the City of Seoul that's the developer here, who has published an official press release on 15th October 2009: Seoul's foremost landmark, "DMC Landmark Building" starts construction (Korean) The translated summary of that press release is published by the country's official English website: Construction begins on Seoul DMC Landmark Building, who again cite their source as the Seoul Metropolitan Government. Korea's largest newspaper, the Korea Times, has news confirming it is under construction: [1] Two days later after ground breaking, Seoul mayor Oh Se-hoon published his own official press release regarding construction progress: [2]. The Korea National Environmental Information Center has issued the same press release on ground breaking day: DMC Landmark Building starts construction (Korean). The country's largest news channel, YTN, has also reported the event[3] and major Korean newspapers such as e-Today[4] and FrontierTimes[5] reiterate the same news. In conclusion, the problem doesn't lie in that we don't have "serious" sources to prove that they are under construction but more on that Emporis, SkyscraperPage or CTBUH are not aware of them right now. This has always been the case with Korean skyscrapers. The Northeast Asia Trade Tower took more than 5 months after breaking ground to turn up on CTBUH. But claiming that they haven't broken ground and removing them from this article just because they haven't been mentioned in those lists, is clearly unjustifiable. Softjuice (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The buildings Softjuice added on the list of tallest buildings in the world are not under-construction. Digital Landmark Building (Seoul Lite) and Inceon Towers. CTBUH as well as Skyscraperpage.com say that those towers are proposals. But Softjuice doesnt understand this. CTBUHs lists are the official building lists and they are updated every week. Have a look here: CTBUHs list of tallest buildings in the world currently under-construction, and Skyscraperpage.com´s World Skyscraper Construction. Soul Lite and Incheon Towers are in the following list (updated in November 2009!): CTBUHs list of tallest proposed buildings. As well as here: Skyscraperpage.com: Buildong Page Incheon Towers. Construction of Incheon Towers should start in 2008, but construction did not begin until today (Status: proposed). Only those Korean newspapers write that "ground was broken". But this doesnt mean that a skyscraper is under-construction. Ground for the Busan Lotte Tower was broken in 2000, but the tower isnt finished until today (construction is currently active). As well as CTBUHs list for tallest buildings in South Korea, which contains completed, topped out, under-construction and on-hold buildings, doesnt include Digital Landmark Bldg. and Incheon Towers: See here. One question: Why doesnt CTBUH, which creates all OFFICIAL lists (also of completed buildings), list those buildings on its lists? In my opinion, we should delete DMCLB and 151 Incheon until they appear on CTBUH, Skyscraperpage.com and Emporis. I belive, those websites are more serious as a boulevard newspaper or a normal newspaper. Jerchel (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your over-dependence on those sources clearly lead to incorrect facts. For example, ground for Busan Lotte World Tower was broken in 9th March 2009[6]l - Emporis states that it was broken in 2000, which actually refers to the ground breaking of the complex itself - the tower is only part of the entire project. One can easily see how unreliable those sources actually are. Again, there is no source which is "official" by any Wikipedia guidelines. This is your WP:POV. Softjuice (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ground breaking of Incheon Towers was held in 2008, but the construciton on this project did not actually started, might be due to global downturn, so they are still confined to the status of Approved.Softjuice if you have any update regarding Incheon towers then please give us the link. if you dont have then we will have to move it in Approved list of buildings.Hope you got my point. As far as the issue of DMC Landmark Building is concerned , it also seems to be doubtful at all. As Jerchel says DMC Landmark Building is not mentioned in CTBUH and Emporis as under construciton buildings.So we are not confirmed here.until any solid prove claims its construction status, we can not list this building in under construciton list at all. There is a fact that, the global downturn has shrinked the economy of the world, so it is hard to say if the construciton will commences or not ! Take a case of Nakheel tower.The ground was also broken for it and the construciton has also been commenced but it was put on hold and now its construciton will be resumed in second quarter of 2010.take a look on the status of nakheel tower on Emporis, CTBUH and many others you will find the same as "On-Hold"........... So this is reality.give us the sites links in which it is currently mentioned as Under construction.they should be updated, not outdated ! Nabil rais2008 (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid construction actually has started. In fact, these towers are being built in order to boost the economy and create jobs, contrary to your belief. DMC Landmark Building is a direct state investment to create 86,000 jobs. Why do you ask whether construction has commenced or not when there are 3 directly sources from its own developers announcing they broke ground on this building? Which source is more reliable - the original developer of this project or websites like Emporis, CTBUH or SkyscraperPage that actually report information FROM those developers? Softjuice (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Softjuice, please do not belive all what developers are writing. One example: The buildings Two and Three World Trade Center. Silverstien Properties Inc., the developer, writes on its website that construction of both towers started in early 2008. But in fact, theres a hole in the ground. No cranes, no workes, nothing... Because they are not able to finance all towers. Ok, excavation has started, but foundation work did not begin until today. Both towers will be complete by 2012 (the developer says). But it is not possible the build those buildings in such a short time. The developer wrties the under-construction status only because the he wants to present that "he´s the best". CTBUH and Skyscraperpage.com are writing the dacts: Two and Three WTC are not under-construction (So we also have to delete those buildings in the u.c. list). And its the same with your buildings, they are not under-constuction. Why shouldnet CTBUH and Skycraperpage.com list those buildings, if they´re under-construction? Please do not belive all you are reading on the Internet. Jerchel (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source which is more reliable than the developers themselves. This is the primary source from which all other secondary sources like Emporis, SkyscraperPage, CTBUH...etc are created. Two and Three World Trade Center has nothing to do with this discussion. Don't try to get off-topic here. We are talking about the DMC Landmark building and the Incheon Towers. Unfortunately, CTBUH nor SkyscraperPage are just as unreliable as any other secondary sources. They depend on the primary source. Telling someone to "believe" one source than the other is a purely personal judgement. Wikipedia is not about personal beliefs - it is about referenced facts from primary sources, not secondary sources. Softjuice (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has nothing do with those towers, but that was only another example. But its so, that CTBUH is creating the OFFICIAL skyscraperlists. And those lists are true. I can not list Willis Tower in the list below with 527m, becuase I like Willis Tower more than the others. This doesnt work. We have to accept the official lists. We can not create our own lists and add buildings that CTBUH dont include in its lists (becuase they are most likely not under-construction). One question: For which reason should CTBUH not list your buildings?? Thres only one reason: The towers are not under-construction. CTBUH knows both skyscrapers, but you will find them in the proposed list. I think we have to accept this, we can not care about personal opinions. The developer wrties the things like he want. CTBUH writes the facts. Jerchel (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "official" list under any Wikipedia guidelines as you claim - CTBUH is a major organization in creating lists for skyscrapers, however, they are still basing their information from primary sources - the original developers. Secondary sources are always more unreliable compared to primary sources because there is always a substantial, if not significant, delay when they receive information from primary soruces to update their lists. This can be up to many months, if there is a lack of communication between sources. This has always been the case with Korean projects, which do not have English sources and are often not updated on those English websites, or even mis-represented with outdated, incorrect facts as we have seen with Busan Lotte World. Unfortunately, these are not "personal opinions" as you claim - the building's status are based on 3 primary sources, directly from their developers. As a matter of fact, you seem to confuse between what is fact and opinion here. Willis Tower has nothing to do with the DMC Landmark Building or Incheon Towers, again, don't try to get off-topic here. The developer doesn't write the things "he want" - the developer is held responsible for stating facts and if there is any incorrect information, then they are the one who are held responsible, not CTBUH or other websites. Softjuice (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Softjuice, these buildings have sources from their own DEVELOPERS and have all broken ground, with several leading newspapers backing it up. Jerchel, the reason why CTBUH and others have not yet included them is because as Softjuice points out, there is clearly a delay in information being communicated between the two. In fact, I noticed this Wikipedia article about the DMCLB didn't even exist before Softjuice created it last week, so I want to give him a big credit for that. ;) I have read a translated version using Google translate of the DMCLB's official press release and it even states it is being constructed at the fastest speed compared to other supertall skyscrapers under construction. I don't think we can accept your view Jerchel. And no, the developer DOES NOT write what they want. ;) Alohahell (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The developer can say what he want, CTBUH is seeing the facts: Theres no sgn of active construction. I can list you very much exaples like this: Developers write, that their projects are under-construction, although thats in fact wrong. If CTBUH gets the information from the developer, why donz CTBUH write under-construction. CTBUH updates nearly dayly. So if your building is under-construction, CTBUH would write it. We have to accept the facts. Its not only CTBUH, there are a lot more websites like Skyscraperpage and Emporis. They all agree with each other. Only your developer dont write the facts. Jerchel (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you believe the developers write facts or not - is purely a personal opinion. It is your own mistrust on them. There is also no guarantee that CTBUH writes "facts" as you claim. However, one thing is clear: primary sources are always more reliable than secondary sources because of the way information is passed on from the primary source to the secondary source. Also, you claim that there is "no sign of active construction" - again, this is your personal opinion. You are continuing to use personal opinion all the time here without a single fact. Is there a source telling whether developers write facts or not? NO. Is there a a source telling whether CTBUH writes facts or not? NO. Again, you don't seem to have even read my previous post properly. As I and alohahell have mentioned, there is an imminent delay between information being communicated between the two sources. And no, CTBUH does not update hourly - show me a source on that. You are starting to create false facts now. Yes, we have definitely got to accept the facts here - not your personal believes and opinions. Softjuice (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can belive what you want. Theree is no serious reason why CTBUH should not list this buildings. Have a look at the weblinks in this artciles. Emporis says as well proposed. Skyscraperpage: says proposed. There are lot websites that say propsed. One source against at least three. Now decide by yourself whats wrong. I dont care about what this list on this website says, because I trust in CTBUH and all the others, that are showing the facts indepedence. If you want to ignore the facts, so feel free and do so. I know the truth. Have a look here: CTBUHs list of tallest buildings in the world currently under-construction, and Skyscraperpage.com´s World Skyscraper Construction. Soul Lite and Incheon Towers are in the following list (updated in November 2009!): CTBUHs list of tallest proposed buildings. There are too much facts against your statement. A sign of active construction is, when there are cranes, excavator and workers. On your images I can not see things like this. So it seems to be that CTBUH writes the truth. Only Busan Lotte Tower- this building is under-construction. Jerchel (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I trust in CTBUH and all the others" - Again this is a purely personal belief of yours, which is prohibited in Wikipedia. Your own judgement is misleading you to that conclusion. You are the one here who is believing what you want. And yes, in fact there is a very serious reason why they haven't included them yet. The Seoul Metropolitan Government has finally published its official English press release and they are very late on this, it was published almost an entire month after construction began on the building: Construction begins on 'Seoul DMC Landmark Building'. So if it took an entire month to update the news even within internal sources, how long would it take for secondary sources like CTBUH to update? Probably far more than you imagine. You claim "I know the truth" - well yes, again, a personal belief and opinion, which you seem to be using all the time here. I can't reiterate just how much your conclusion depends on your own personal beliefs. You want to make yourself belief that they are not under construction, that is the problem here. I am afraid if we count the sources by numbers, we have almost 3 primary sources + 8 secondary sources against 3 secondary sources which are known to not update their lists for a long time. Yes, YOU are the only one who doesn't care about those primary sources. CTBUH has once again prove unreliable by stating the building's name is "Seoul Lite", which is the old codename used last year. It doesn't matter when CTBUH updates those lists - they are unreliable as it is. Yes, that image was taken 1 day after construction began - all those construction equipments would take more than a week to set up. So no, it seems rather that CTBUH Is an unreliable source which has serious problems in getting the correct sources and updating them punctually. Softjuice (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to ignore the facts, so do so. Thats your opinion. I have another opinion. I dont want to discuss here anymore. I trust in CTBUH and the others like Emporis. Again, CTBUH updates very often. When International Commerce Centre topped out, CTBUH noted this within three days. So you want to tell me, that CTBUH doesnt update its list? Thats ridiculous. Seoul Lite and Inceon Towers are not under-construction. I dont say CTBUH is the bible, but its a reliable competently and indepedence source. Jerchel (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you are the one who is ignoring facts and using your personal believes. You're the only one insisting on this. Again "I trust in CTBUH and the others" is a pure personal statement which is prohibited at Wikipedia. Last time, I asked you for a source on how often CTBUH updates. You have still failed to provide me one. Yes, you are saying the CTBUH is the bible - you are saying that is the reason why you are vandalizing this article. The International Commerce Centre has nothing to do with this. You are trying to go off-topic all the time. Besides, the ICC is a much more older project located on an English speaking region. The buildings we are talking about here are in totally different circumstances. The NEATT took more than 5 months to update its status on CTBUH. CTBUH even gets names wrong like "Seoul Lite" when it should be "DMC Landmark Building" and even gets dates wrong, like the ground breaking for Busan Lotte World, which is stated as "2000" when it was broken ground on March 2009. CTBUH is totally unreliable in that sense, at least for the towers in question right now. "Independent" has no relevance with this - it only means another secondary source that is always less reliable than primary sources because the information originates from the primary source (i.e. the developers of these projects). CTBUH is not the only source Jerchel. You have to accept that there are more reliable sources than simply CTBUH. Just because it is a more official organization doesn't make it automatically more reliable than the others. Softjuice (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I wanted to say with CTBUH is, that this organization updates its lists very often, nearly dayly. There are a lot more sources like CTBUH, but you igonre them as well. Have a look at Emporis or Skyscraperpage. Theres a link to Emporis in the article of Incheon Towers. Construction should start in 2008, but has not begin until today. It might be conidered as a stale proposal. As well as Seoul Lite. Currently theres no reliable source that say, constructionn has started. We dont know what developers count as construction. Perhaps excavation or demolishing the former building on this site. However, CTBUH only counts foundation work and piling work. And this has nothing to do with an English speaking region. We should trust in CTBUH, because it has the largest database of skyscrapers, and its up date. The whole thing has nothing to do with my personal opinion. I just see the facts. In dont know how this is in en WP, but in French and German CTBUH is seen as the best source in this topic. CTBUH creates the official list of the tallest completed buildings. Why shoulnt we take the CTBUH under-constr. list here? I belive, you dont like CTBUH, because it doent your buildings, although you like them, and so you dont want to have this website as a source. Jerchel (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's quite obvious that CTBUH and Emporis aren't up to date in this case. The Emporis page for DMCLB still has the originally proposed height of 690, which is confirmed by early news articles found online. Jerchel, with all due respect, you have absolutely no argument at the moment except that you personally trust CTBUH over every other source even though, as Softjuice pointed out earlier, we have three primary sources and eight secondary sources which confirm the buildings are under construction. I usually trust CTBUH and Emporis over any websites but I believe that in this case, we have no choice but to ignore their outdated information and use the other primary sources we have. It has nothing to do with not "liking" CTBUH, but it appears that they just don't have updated information from this certain part of the world. --timsdad ^(talk) 11:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want to discuss here anymore, because everybody ignores my arugemts and sources. Thats shame. Jerchel (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now don't be like that... Okay I might have been a bit harsh on you there, but without being too one-sided, neither you nor Softjuice really listened to what the other was saying as this entire discussion is basically the same points made over and over. As more of an onlooker, I have viewed the discussion as Softjuice presenting his side of the argument and backing it up with sources and you repeating over and over that you "see the facts".

I have contacted the CTBUH via email to get them to shed some light on the status of the DMCLB, but judging by the responses from organisations I've had in the past, it's quite likely they won't reply. --timsdad ^(talk) 14:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timsdad, your behavior is okay. I dont understand why everbody is igoring CTBUHs information, as well as skyscraperpage.com. I dont want to discuss about this anymore, because Softjuice ignores my sources. I had a loom at his sources, but I have a reason to view critical hat his point. What I want to say is, that developers often dont tell the truth, on Seoul Lite and Incheon as well. There are a lot more examples for such cases.Jerchel (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have reviewed this discussion and we have a clear consensus that these buildings are indeed under construction announced by their own developers - the guys who are building these towers in the first place. "Developers don't always tell the truth" - I mean what kind of statement is that?? Is that your own personal mistrust in the developers?? Ridiculous. You claim CTBUH updates hourly and so on, then show us some source on that, as Softjuice mentioned. Otherwise you are simply being untruthful here.

No Jerchel, we are NOT ignoring CTBUH and the others, it is just that they simply don't update these buildings, whether it is because of a lack of communication between the primary sources and those websites or a delay in information being passed between those two. If they had updated them, of course we would use them but in this situation, there have been too many instances which has shown CTBUH isn't reliable at all - as Softjuice mentioned, ground breaking for Busan Lotte World is not 2000!! It's March 2009, for goodness sake. They even use the concept name of the building for DMCLB, (i.e. Seoul Lite), which is outdated by almost a year. So it is clear that the ground breaking news isn't getting through to their ears right now. And no wonder, because the article about DMCLB in Wikipedia didn't even exist before Softjuice created it, so there is an incredible ignorance about Korean towers in the English-speaking world right now. I have began working on Korean tower articles as well and I think Softjuice has done a great job on getting these amazing projects into Wikipedia and we should credit him for that. Alohahell (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its ridiculous to say that theres no communiction between developers and CTBUH. CTBUH does not write what a developer is saying. The organization has an indepedence view to those projects. Its not enough for CTBUH when the developer says the building is under-construction. CTBUH wants to seen by itsown that a tower is conidered under-construction. And for sure this has nothing to do with an English speaking region. Thats totaly wrong and ridiculous. Have a look at China. Is China an English speaking country? Have a look at Saudi Arbaia, Russia and so on. Or is there also no communication? We´re talking about South-Korea not a small village in the wilderness. There are lot more examples like this. Softjuice says, construction of Seoul Lite has begun in October. Now we have nearly December. And CTBUH dindt take notice of a 640m tower? Ridiculous. As well as Incheon. Theres a nice picture in the article here from last month. Softjuice and his sources say, construction has started in 2008. Now have a look at this image. Theres only a sign. No cranes, no machienes, nothing. I can not see there any sign for a construction site. And the fence is not so tall that you´re not able to see a crane. In the case of Incheon Towers, I whould say this project can be considered as a stale proposal. In the case of Seoul Lite, its an uncertain proposal. If the developer has no money anymore tomorrow, he whould not think about anymore to continue on this project. But maybe construction once begins. Who knows that? If this happens, I´m sure that CTBUH will take notice of this. Jerchel (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I just point out to Softjuice that using another account to lead others in this discussion to believe Alohahell is someone different is sock puppetry and that if he deliberately posts again here with Alohahell he will be reported. Thanks, timsdad ^(talk) 23:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See your user page regarding this, Timsdad. Softjuice (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may be mistaken about this, see this discussion regarding this issue. --timsdad ^(talk) 01:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pentominium's Height !

I have been seen that every body is reverting the height of pentominium to either 516 meters or to 618 meters, giving the only source which is its official website.Previously it was suposed to be 516 meters tall but after sometime its height has been increased to 618 meters tall with an additional spire.I have listed below a number of reliable sources whcih either states that it will be tallest residential tower in the world (which means it will be taller then chicago spire,whose projected height is 610 meters so it will be 618 meters tall). While another source states that:.

"The Pentominium will be the tallest all-residential building in the world upon completion and it currently has the highest projected height of any residential building under construction, according to Aedas, the project designers".

So its a strong point here that Aedas who are the designers of Pentominium has given this statement. So it means that pentominium will be atleats 618 meters tall, as well as its for sure that it is gonna built, its construciton is on fast track you can view its construction status in skyscrapercity.com. Its official website might not updated its new height of 618 meters, there its height is written as 516 meters.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG!! CTBUH, Skyscraperpage.com and a few others have 516m This is the offivial height. The spire is only a rumors, and the spire is not neccessary to add, because Pentominium will be the tallest all-residentila building. The Chicago Spire will most likely not be built. Have a look at the renderings, there is no spire. So please do not change back. Jerchel (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Pentominium's official height is 518m, not 618m. Please do not continue to revert this figure. Softjuice (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion here. --timsdad ^(talk) 00:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Emporis, it say that pentominimu will be 618 meters tall !!!

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Emporis still says 618m. I contacted Emporis about this via Mail. Skyscraperpage, CTBUH and the buildings website, as well Aedas (the architect) say something different. Jerchel (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So did you get any answer from emporis ??? It will remain to be seen that whether they add a spire on the top of pentominium or not, if the construction of chicago spire gets resume then there will be chances of adding spire, so as to beat chicago spires height !

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard back from them, but my friend contacted them again. Let´s see. The CTBUH told me, that they contacted Aedas (the architect) about that, but they never get an answer. Jerchel (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buttons Broken

On the table, the floors button and the year finished buttons are backwards. I would fix it, but I don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by !!Aaapplesauce (talk • contribs) 04:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, years controls floors, and I'm not sure what floors is controling... —Preceding unsigned comment added by !!Aaapplesauce (talk • contribs) 04:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting function not working

In the "Tallest skyscrapers by architectural detail (top 200)" list, sorting by floors doesn't do anything reasonable. Any way to fix that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.23.4.43 (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In future, please check for other discussions on the same topic before posting a discussion (see directly above). Also, please begin discussions by clicking the "new section" button at the top of any talk page.

As for the sorting function, I personally have no idea how to fix it. --timsdad ^(talk) 02:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got the idea of why the sorting didn't work. The height in metre and feet are in two separate columns, but in the first (header) row, the "Height" cell is merged. The problem is, if you sort "Floors", it will sort the "Height (ft)" column (and erroneously). Thus sorting "Built" will sort the "Floors" instead.

My suggestion to rectify it is to combine the two height units into one column, i.e. ___ m (_,___ ft) I don't see why two columns are necessary anyway. HУтaяtalk2me contribs 12:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many other tall buildings lists are done like that and I can't see why this one can't be. It takes up much less room and one fewer cell is needed.

However, the sorting function appears to be working on the list of tallest buildings and structures in the world, but I guess that's because it is a much simpler table with separate headers for the metres and feet columns.

I'm willing to begin working on this soon. Thanks, timsdad ^(talk) 14:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It works because the header section is not merged. Still, what's the point of separating the height into two columns, right? Sorting them should produce the same result anyway.

Can I have the honour to start merging them? =) HУтaяtalk2me contribs 21:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knock yourself out, as long as you link to this discussion in the edit summary. Note that the table on this article was recently changed and the sorting function does now work, but there is hardly any space between the text in the two columns, the ___ m (_,___ ft) will look much better here. --timsdad ^(talk) 02:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just did some major source code change to the top 200 table: added a building (meaning reordering the ranks), added {{nts}} to properly sort ranks, combined height columns using {{convert}} and double checked city [[overlinking]]. Hope you guys like it. HУтaяtalk2me contribs 21:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Apparently an anon reverted my edits, but I left my mark anyway. Anyone who prefer my edits are welcomed to revert that back. *wink* HУтaяtalk2me contribs 07:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo section

In my (Firefox 3.5) browser the photos section (titled 'Tallest skyscrapers by architectural detail') renders as an endless column at the right extreme of the window. Looks pretty dorky. Some kind of table seems highly appropriate, at the very least.Twang (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The images are all fine in my (Firefox 3.5) browser. Is anyone else having problems with this? --timsdad ^(talk) 02:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ICC

international commerce centre is missing from the list of tallest structures by pinnacle list. am i missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aptpupil79 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Federation Tower East?

Federation Tower East (Moscow) disappeared from the list of buildings under construction. Why? --SleepySheepy (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the CTBUH and SkyscraperPage, the taller of the two towers, Vostok has suffered a height reduction to 242.4 m, the same height as the other tower, Zapad. This means that it wouldn't be included in the list as only buildings planned to be 300 metres or taller are included. --timsdad ^(talk) 00:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think somebody's cheating

Why is Empire State Building higher on the list than Petronas Towers? Petronas Towers used to be the tallest building in the world. So how can ESB be taller?

Just look here and compare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skyscrapercompare.svg

What's taller? ESB or Petronas Towers? --SleepySheepy (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the huge overhaul this article got a few hours ago, the main list appears to have undergone some strange changes. The Petronas Towers' height was given to their roofs rather than the spires, which is incorrect. I have corrected this, but there are likely other mistakes in the list now. --timsdad ^(talk) 00:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it appears many of the skyscrapers have been ranked to their roof height now, not spire height. I'll go about fixing this but it may take a while. --timsdad ^(talk) 00:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks daddy ^^ --SleepySheepy (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... I'm also frustrated to see that in this edit, the entire list was removed because it was a "copyright violation" of the Emporis list, which is ridiculous! Then the height to roof list was renamed to structural height, which is obviously incorrect. I'll have to revert my own edits "fixing" the Petronas Towers problem and restore the real structural height list. --timsdad ^(talk) 00:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that. I would support reverting all the way back to January 3 and then redoing the required edits like Dubai→Khalifa, etc. That user is also using the absolute nonsense claim that using Emporis is advertising. Advertising what? A valuable resource? It's also nonsense to claim the list is copyrighted, as you can't copyright measurements. Anyway, they are clearly cited. Also, I would support readding the shading. I think it looks much better than all white, and it is not difficult to change because I have WikEd. Reywas92^Talk 01:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikEd can be used to simplify shading!? How? I would support the shading, I also think it looks much better with it. --timsdad ^(talk) 01:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. If there's a new building so that there would be two coloreds or whites in a row, I just tell it to change every instance of |- below it to |- color stuff and every instance of |- color stuff to |-. Reywas92^Talk 03:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you can't do them both at the same time, can you? Once you've done the first bit, doing the second bit will just remove all the colour stuffs. --timsdad ^(talk) 03:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Product Center

I`ve seen that you forgot the World Product Center in New York City(308m).Can everyone add it to the buildings under construction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.235.189.193 (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. However, the building's entry on SkyscraperPage indicates that it's cancelled, although the article on Wikipedia doesn't say anything about it and a quick Google won't return anything reliable about cancellation. There is this SkyscraperPage forum on it, though. --timsdad ^(talk) 01:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is another thing that I realized:The high of the Trump International Hotel and Tower is 423m.You can see it on the homepage page of the CTBUH or at the German Wikipedia.

Thanks for pointing out that one, too. I'm going to bring it up on the article's talk page. --timsdad ^(talk) 12:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to timsdad:I am sure that the high is 423.4m because the CTBUH has new regulares and they have measured the high from the lowest entrance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.235.152.172 (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The World Product Center is unforunately cancelled. Skyscraperpage.com is correct. Jerchel (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaded list

Following on from the discussion above.

I originally removed the shading because I felt, with the rapid pace of changes here, the shading was sometimes forgotten and it quickly deviated from the alternating grey and white lines; indeed, in less than a day after Reywas92's revert, the shading has been disrupted again. Unlike Reywas92, I don't use WikEd and fixing the shading can be quite a hassle unless you are onto it quickly. Further things to consider are what if there is a tie in the height, should those be the same colour? ... how about for twin towers? It might look better to some, but I really think simpler markup is the way to make future editing easy. Astronaut (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I was considering merging the rank rows for the equal ranks (as However whatever did in this edit to the lists of tallest structures, freestanding structures and buildings) but then the row highlighting will be all single-coloured for various equal-ranks. Maybe a darker coloured background of the table such as the one in the table I linked to above would make it easier to read? I use WikEd, so I can easily remove all of the row highlighting to save you the trouble. --timsdad ^(talk) 04:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reformatting I'm not sure I really like the look of the merged rank cells. Maybe if the number was centred in the column it would look better. I'm just not quite sure how to do that (without adding code to every rank number (like in the floors column). --timsdad ^(talk) 05:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it by adding ! before the ranks, but make sure the rank is on its own line, separated from the other data. A slight side effect is that the numbers will appear bold.

Rank	Building	City	Country	Height	Floors	Built
1	Burj Khalifa	Dubai	UAE	828 m (2,717 ft)	160	2010
2	Taipei 101	Taipei	Taiwan (ROC)	509 m (1,670 ft)	101	2004
3	Shanghai World Financial Center	Shanghai	China (PRC)	492 m (1,614 ft)	101	2008
4	International Commerce Centre	Hong Kong	Hong Kong	483 m (1,585 ft)	118	2009
5=	Petronas Tower 2	Kuala Lumpur	Malaysia	452 m (1,483 ft)	88	1998
5=	Petronas Tower 1	Kuala Lumpur	Malaysia	452 m (1,483 ft)	88	1998

My idea of simplifying the height column is also presented above. While I edit the table, I noticed many   as whitespace. I wonder why... About the shading, its meaningless to those visually impaired. Besides, it's not as messy without it. HУтaяtalk2me contribs 22:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, do not merge tied ranks. It renders it impossible to sort the table. I really think the background color looks nice on this list. As it's decoration, you still alternate on ties. Reywas92^Talk 22:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've undergone a process of a few edits to revert my very time-consuming edit of merging the joint ranks, and am now beginning to convert the ranks to the above. As for the simplification of the height column, would we not be using the conversion template instead? --timsdad ^(talk) 03:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to continue with doing the ranks like this, because if you see above, the joint ranks look a bit weird with the equals sign when centred. I'll leave it for now and gather opinions. --timsdad ^(talk) 03:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the centering of ranks; better to leave the alignment by default. On {{Convert}}, the |ft parameter can be dropped without affecting the output. I tested it until a million metres, just to see how "future-proof" it is, and it works. HУтaяtalk2me contribs 18:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flags and links

I'm really tempted to clean up the overlinking of city and country names, and remove all the flags from the lists. Overlinking is discouraged by the Manual of Style and the flags don't seem to serve any purpose except to increase page load time. Astronaut (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the flags but I don't see how the cities are overlinked. They are each linked once in each table and the countries have to be linked with the use of the flag template. If we remove the flagicons we can link each once. --timsdad ^(talk) 04:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I like flags, I don't oppose removing them. However, in long sortable lists things should be linked each time in case they are reordered. Reywas92^Talk 22:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural Detail

Could somebody please define the term Architectural Detail? I have no idea at what point a spire ceases to be an architectural detail. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A spire is included in the height to architectural detail, just not an antenna. As a spire is added to a building for no other purpose than to look good/increase its height, and an antenna is only used for communication, a spire will count and an antenna will not. --timsdad ^(talk) 02:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incheon and Lotte World

The Busan Lotte World Tower is after my knowledge not U/C. Those construction site you see at the image taken by Softjuice is not the tower, it´s the sourrounding shopping-center. Here an intersting link: [7]. Those images are taken on January 4th of this year. There is no construction going on. The 151 Incheon Towers are as well not U/C. Some photos from the fourth quarter of last year show this: [8]. Several more sources: [9] and [10]. The image in the article, taken by Softjuice, do not show a construction process. Sorry. Jerchel (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so now you're "sorry"? Why are you "sorry"? Because you think your WP:POV hasn't gained any consensus among other editors? This issue has long been a POV problem of you and we've clearly gained consensus among editors that they're under construction. You're the only one single editor believing they're somehow not under construction. Unless you gain consensus from other editors, I'm afraid you will be vandalizing this article by continuously removing those towers. Softjuice (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please have look at Timsdad´s talk page. Sorry Siftjuice, the facts say someething differnt. It´s not only CTBUH. Several others and photos. Softjuice, you vandalize the article if you change back without a source abd reason and without talking here about that. Jerchel (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of DMCLB it seems to be the same: [11] and the weblink to Emporis. Here another source: [12]. Sorry, I have to remove this, too. Jerchel (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DMCLB is not under construction even not Approved for construction,

CTBUH.com

It says DMCLB is Propsed and construciton will start in 2010.

Emporis.com

It says its been planned (site preparations),but it doesnt mean its under construciton.

Lotte super tower is also proposed see here there is a list of All buildings whether they are proposed,Approved,Under construciton or never built.

CTBUH.com

Still there are many sources which says that the ground for DMCLB is broken in oct 2009, but the primary and most reliable sources still says that its Proposed, until they change its status to under construciton we shall have to change DMLCB's status from under construciton to Proposed in all articles including its own article.And it will be useles if anyone again revert its status again,already a long discussion has been carried out previously but no concensus was made,because Softjuice was stick to its point that DMLCB is under construction,but nowhere it has been proved with the help of Emporis, and CTBUH,so until they(emporis,CTBUH,skyscraperpage) change its status we shall have to stop this issue to be more disscussed.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you´re right. Groundbreaking is not enough, foundation work must begin. Busan Lotte World Tower is currently listed as U/C in the diagrams of skyscraperpage. However, I contacted one of the website managers, and they will change soon. Jerchel (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Softjuice has reverted the changes of status to the aticles (not to mention a lot of good edits on Digital Media City Landmark Building) claiming that we have reached consensus in the past. We're going to need to reach another consensus here that the buildings are not under construction. --timsdad ^(talk) 00:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He adds this and the other Korean Towers over and over again! It´s enough, this needs a releibale spource like Emporis, CTBUH or skyscraperpage. It´s enough. Softjuice changes as well permanent the height of Al Quds Endowment Tower, this one is 500m tall. Jerchel (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative measurements

CTBUH no longer uses the height to roof criterion. Please swap the list with one for highest occupied floor height. See http://www.ctbuh.org/HighRiseInfo/TallestDatabase/Criteria/tabid/446/language/en-US/Default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.46 (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering doing this when the CTBUH first changed the criteria, but decided against it as many building articles still use the "Height to Roof" category when noting the height of buildings in comparison to others, etc. Is there really any harm in leaving the list here? Should we just add a whole new section to the height to highest occupied floor? What are other opinions on this? --timsdad ^(talk) 00:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we dont have to remove the height to roof list [although I would still prefer to remove it since it is obsolete and will save space]. But we have to clearly note that it has been discarded as a criterion. Highest occupied floor list should really really be added as it is one of the three ranking criteria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.46 (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must stress that just because the CTBUH removed the criterion, doesn't mean that we have to remove it. The CTBUH just creates guidelines as to what separates buildings from towers, etc. and provides some different categories of height measurement. The only reason I see for removing the height to roof list is if it is too similar to the height to highest occupied floor list, and it just takes up space. --timsdad ^(talk) 00:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you dont know but the CTBUH is THE authoritative source on "tallest buildings" and rankings - which is what this article is all about. "The Council is the arbiter of the criteria upon which tall building height is measured, and thus the title of ‘The World’s Tallest Building’ determined. CTBUH is the world’s leading body dedicated to the field of tall buildings and urban habitat and the recognized international source for information in these fields." anyway read my comment above. i prefer swap list since it conforms with ctbuh and saves space. if people really demand height to roof we can note it has been discarded by the CTBUH. many thanks76.65.20.46 (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When will height to highest occupied fl be added/swapped? also news from ctubh about official ratifications of burj khalifa. http://www.ctbuh.org/NewsMedia/PR_100308_TallestTrends/tabid/1468/language/en-US/Default.aspx 76.65.23.193 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pingan International Finance Center

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm fed up with the conflicting information about the Pingan International Finance Centre; whether its under construction or proposed, or whether its height is 508 or 646 metres. We need to lay out our sources and come to a Wikipedia-wide consensus. The same goes for the DMCLB and the Incheon Towers. We had another discussion about these above, but it didn't get very far. --timsdad ^(talk) 23:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had now a look for a sources. There are sources that say it´s under-construction, other say proposed. The height changes from 508m or 646m. Is there no project website? Jerchel (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources say 646m: CTBUH, Skyscrapercity, Skyscraperpage. The skyscraperpage entry you seem to like says 508m to roof but thread says 646. I think we'll get more confirmation when they make a project website. Till then the sources are more than adequate but if sometin pops up then bring it to our attn...

and just to say...This article is a great resource hope it gets updated often. I find it particularly lacking of the new towers T/O that seem to spring up like weeds everywhere in China. some dubai towers may also need to be added. 76.65.20.46 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two Forum 66 Tower 2

How come? mixed up with other Hang Lung Plaza? Matthew_hk t c 09:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AUCKLAND SKY TOWER SHOULD BE IN THIS LIST

THE AUCKLAND SKY TOWER IS THE TALLEST FREE STANDING STRUCTURE IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE AND STANDS AT 328m (1076 ft) why isn't it on the list? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Tower —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.71.60 (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To qualify to be on this list, it needs to be a skyscraper as defined by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, which means it has "occupiable floors". Since the Sky Tower is an observation tower, it does not have permanently habitable space (residences, offices, or retail, all outside the base) and therefore doesn't qualify as a building. Please see List of tallest towers in the world and List of tallest freestanding structures in the world for the lists you're seeking. ~~Eagles~~Phillies Fan In Tampa 13:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Commerce Centre

Appears to have an architectural top below its roof, and is not listed in the pinnacle table. 131.111.184.95 (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

City of Capitals

Shouldn't the two buildings be listed separately? 131.111.184.95 (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I would like to insert images next to the buildings names in tables. Those lists will be more interesting and visually more comparing with those. Anyone, some ideas about? --Tadija^speaks 00:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnius TV Tower

Surely Vilnius TV Tower shouldn't be on here? Unfortunately it's not as simple as removing the entry from the table; all subsequent "ranks" would need to be updated. We really need automatic numbering of rows in wikitables for these kinds of lists. mgiganteus1 (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

India

I found Wikipedia articles on India tower, World One and Iconic tower. Their proposed heights 500-700m, 500m and 526m respectively. Theres no mention of them in this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_Tower http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_India —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.140.95 (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nakheel Tower

The tower is not on hold but has been cancelled according to its Wikipedia page. It might need to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.140.95 (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abraj Albait

this is the second tallest tower now. It has a height of 601 m. It is located in Saudi Arabia , Mecca. It opened this year.Abrnkak (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any information confirming you. --Icmer In Nyc (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canton Tower

Check it out.... It's finished and I don't believe it's a tower. --Icmer In Nyc (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hanging Village of Huaxi

What about this? Another building rising in China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging_Village_of_Huaxi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.121.184 (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion on this list is found at the top of List of tallest buildings in the world. Quote:

"These lists only include buildings that:

are completed or topped-out, and
have continuous occupiable floors (high-rise buildings)."

In other words, it does not seems like it is eligible for inclusion. jonkerz ♠ 04:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, never mind all that, it's for the completed buildings list. Hanging Village of Huaxi was actually already added, but under the local name[13] Farmer's Apartments. It is now changed, thanks, jonkerz ♠ 14:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOTS OF BUILDINGS NEED ADDING

The buildings that would enter the top 200 and are currently complete and need adding ASAP are

For Dubai, UAE

Churchill Towers - 245 M Al Tayer Tower - 249 M Angsana Hotel & Suites - 250M Ubora Towers - 256M

For Miami, USA

Brickell Financial Center - 275M - 88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyb123321 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Is any one going to add these, also 4 buildings (Chose 4 from this list) need adding to make the total buildings up to 200 (someone edited it so now the top 200 is the top196???) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyb123321 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of CTBUH and it's own official site

Someone here believes the CTBUH website is more reliable than any other official websites, anyone agree or disagree? In this case, do we need any more official and reliable sources? or just CTBUH is enough? Towerblock (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Developers prefer to increase some values at their website. CTBUH does not create their own values, they often get blueprints from the architects. So choose what's more reliable. Jerchel (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Developers prefer to increase some values at their website" and "CTBUH often get blueprints from the architects", that's just based on your personal opinions. We believe in official informations more than anything else. Towerblock (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do? Herostratus (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Hancock Center

Where is the John Hancock Center from Chicago? It should be the 26th tallest building on this list I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.57.29 (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added it, but the numbering is still messed up. Anyone looking for a tedious project? ;) Zagalejo^^^ 06:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milad Tower

6 Milad Tower Tehran Iran 435.0 m 1,427 ft 12 2008 I was just wondering why the Milad Tower is considered a "building" on the list of buildings to the roof height? It seems as if other "towers" such as CN, etc., should be in this list if the Milad is. I'm not an expert on this, so I can't make a solid decision either way, so I thought I would bring it up here. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India's richest man moves into 27 story house

Not sure if this should go here, but I think that it's worth a mention: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/8063385/Indias-richest-man-Mukesh-Ambani-moves-into-630m-home.html

Is this the right place? --Synethos (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in the world that need adding

Churchill Towers Al Tayer Tower Angsana Hotel & Suites Ubora Towers Princess Tower 23 Marina Central Market Residential Tower The Marina Torch

All of these buildings are top 200 but do not appear in the list

UOB Centre, Singapore - not to be deleted! (3 buildings at this height there) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.206.40 (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status in map

Vietnam have buildings in the top 200 and buildings 300 m (980 ft) or taller under construction.

Thus, please change status's color of Vietnam.

Thank you. Tomdoan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

What about buildings no longer standing?

Would it be appropriate to include in the list buildings that would have qualified but are no longer standing? Obviously, the original WTC towers come to mind here, but they are not going to be the only ones. My POV is that we should have them in the list, with of course some way (traditionally, an asterisk) of denoting that they are no longer standing. Following the most likely scenario of the way human progress is going, it is not unreasonable to suppose that eventually some of these buildings are going to be demolished. It occurs to me that "where would have the Xxxxx building been in this list" is a reasonable question for someone to ask and that this is a reasonable place to come to have that question answered. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that List_of_tallest_freestanding_structures_in_the_world has this, with the no longer standing in italics. So there's a Wiki precedent. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

data about Willis Tower inconsistent

I don't mean to sound pushy, but the data about the Willis Tower is totally inconsistent in the article. Its height is given at 442m in the list by continent, but given as 527m by architectural detail and to the roof. It is the antenna that accounts for the 85m difference though. It is also listed with different heights by a couple inches. Regards, OdinFK (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nationality of Hong Kong

I do not understand that why Hong Kong has been stated as a country and other regions in Hong Kong (eg. HK Island, Kowloon) were considered as cities. Hong Kong is a part of China. Why don't we put Hong Kong into China just like Shanghai,Shenzhen as well? 119.247.182.107 (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was done a few weeks ago (and I have redone today when someone changed it back to Hong Kong). Astronaut (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abraj Al-Bait Towers

People keep adding Abraj Al-Bait Towers to the list of tallest building. Unfortunately, this complex is not yet complete and is not even topped out. It is therefore ineligible for inclusion in this list and is instead correctly placed in the under construction list. Please stop adding it into the main list until it is topped out. Astronaut (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per the updates of Council on tall buildings and urban habitate (CTBUH), the Clock tower of Abraj Al Bait towers, is topped out with the completion of the spire. You can see the updated images of this tower on skyscrapercity, that reveals that the structure is almost topped out.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that actually topped out or "almost topped out"? The images on skyscrapercity dated Sunday still show construction on the glass 'jewel' shape just below the spire. That said, the CTBUH (a reliable source) does classify it as topped out. I didn't check, but has the Abraj Al-Bait Towers article been updated to reflect that status? Astronaut (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes some parts of the building are still under construction, and the crane still working above the jewel. The article of Abraj Al Bait towers has not been updated. However CTBUH reflects the status as topped out.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I updated this article to reflect the topped out status from the CTBUH and also updated the Abraj Al-Bait Towers article (citing the CTBUH as a reliable source). Astronaut (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feet

The conversion from metres to feet is inconsistent for some entries. Perhaps I'll get around to investigating from a reliable source, but I'm a little short of time. If someone else want to look into this. Astronaut (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can use the this form of conversion in this article, 828 metres (2,717 ft), so that the height of all buildings will be consistent without any error / mistakes. I have went through some featured list of buildings and found that in most of the featured list the same format is used as in this article. While in some other articles this sortable format, 871 (266) is used.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong subsumed into China, or not?

Is, or is not, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China a separate polity for the purposes of this list? Should building in Hong Kong be listed as in "China" or in "Hong Kong", and if the later which flag should be used, China's or Hong Kong's? Hong Kong is in a state somewhere between "independent country" and "just another city", I guess, so I don't know. How is this generally handled elsewhere? Herostratus (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update, looked at three random articles and they aren't consistent. List of cities proper by population lists Hong Kong as in China, while List of urban areas by population lists Hong Kong as in Hong Kong and List of metropolitan areas by population lists the metro area as partly in Hong Kong (and partly in China). Another user pointed out MOS:FLAG#Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations which would support the use of the Chinese flag even if the building as listed as being in Hong Kong (rather than China). This seems odd, but OK, but the cited MOS only says "generally" and it appears from that it would hinge on whether people in Hong Kong are Chinese subjects and carry Chinese passports, which I don't know.

Surely this has been discussed elsewhere, is the a centralized or earlier discussion for this that anyone knows of? Herostratus (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Hong Kong, Hong Kong under the One country, two systems scheme has a number of markers of an unusual level of autonomy. They have their own currency, the Hong Kong Dollar, for instance. They also have a multi-party system with democratic elections (although the Chinese government also has considerable say and this is complicated) and their own laws and court system based on the common law rather than Chinese law. However, Hong Kong people are Chinese citizens as far as I can tell.

It seems that Hong Kong some of the markers of a protectorate rather than an autonomous area, albeit not sovereign (but "Although not autonomous in name, in practice China's special administrative regions, Hong Kong and Macau, enjoy a very high degree of autonomy" according to that article). Maybe their situation is similar to Bermuda, which I guess is also a sort of protectorate. If one of these buildings was in Bermuda, would it be it listed as being in "Bermuda" or the "United Kingdom"? Granted, Bermuda is physically removed from Britain, and that may or may not be a germane difference. Puerto Rico is perhaps another somewhat similar case, although it is probably more integrated into the metropolitan entity (same currency, for instance). How would a building in San Juan be listed?

FWIW, I would guess that's Hong Kong's unusual history and status is to some degree why they have a number of the world's tallest buildings. If they had not been independent (and remaining somewhat so) they wouldn't have an economic base that supported that level of need for office space, and they also could have build out on the mainland more easily. It's precisely the desire of tenants to remain in Hong Kong and under its laws, coupled with the small size of Hong Kong, that led to the creation of these buildings, I suppose. Is that germane? I don't know, but I don't see why not. Herostratus (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that are two outcomes possible for buildings in Hong Kong:

In "Hong Kong", with the Hong Kong flag.
In "China", with the Chinese flag.
In "Hong Kong, China", with the Hong Kong Flag.

"Hong Kong, China" is used by the Olympic movement and the World Trade Organization and probably some other organizations, presumably as a compromise. I would not to support that use outside of contexts where it's appropriate (e.g. the World Trade Organization article itself etc.) because it's not the legal name of Hong Kong and it's not widely used, and it would be synthesis on our part to extend this usage outside of the particular contexts where it's used -- it's not our job to make up our own designation for Hong Kong, even granting that a few organizations use it. However, I see here that Hong Kong stamps bear the legend "Hong Kong, China". So I dunno.

Looking at some particulars in more detail:

Wikiprecedent: Granting that Wikiprecedent doesn't prove everything, it's a data point. This is what I found in trolling through the articles, not guaranteed to be exhaustive.
- Hong Kong in "Hong Kong": List of urban areas by population and List of metropolitan areas by population treats Hong Kong being in "Hong Kong". List of Chinese records in swimming (these are the records set in China, regardless of the nationality of the swimmer) lists Hong Kong swimmers as from "Hong Kong". List of country legal systems has a separate entry for Hong Kong. List of railway companies lists Hong Kong separately from China. Order of precedence list Hong Kong separately from China, albeit indented to appear subsidiary to China. List of bus operating companies lists Hong Kong in the same way as independent countries (the PRC is not listed at all). This is addition to articles such as List of members of the Universal Postal Union which list Hong Kong separately -- they have to, since it's a member.
- Hong Kong in "China": List of cities proper by population treats Hong Kong as being in "China". List of metro systems lists the Hong Kong metro as being in "China". (Later addition: List of world's busiest container ports also has Hong Kong in "China".)
- Other: List of etymologies of country subdivision names regards Hong Kong as province of China, same as Shenyang etc. List of Chinese language television channels lists Hong Kong channels under "Special Administrative Regions", albeit at the same header level as China. List of tunnels by location has three subcategories under China: "Mainland", "Taiwan", and "Hong Kong". Hong Kong has a separate entry in List of countries by population.
- In all cases where the designation "Hong Kong" is used, and a flag is used, it is the Hong Kong flag (and similarly for "China" and the Chinese flag).
Memberships. This is not a complete list.
- Full memberships
  - Hong Kong has its own Olympic team. It is designated as "Hong Kong, China". Timothy Fok is an Olympic Committee member and he's listed at the relevant article as representing "Hong Kong, China" with the Hong Kong flag used.
  - According to List of country calling codes, Hong Kong has its own telephone country code.
  - Hong Kong is a member of the World Trade Organization, again under the name "Hong Kong, China". According to that article, members do not have to be states (the European Union, not a state, is a member) but do have to be "a customs territory with full autonomy in the conduct of their external commercial relations".
  - Hong Kong is a member of the Universal Postal Union.
  - Hong Kong is a member of the East Asian Football Federation. (Possibly under the name "Hong Kong, China", not sure.)
  - According to this, Hong Kong is a member of the World Organization of the Scout Movement (and the PRC isn't).
  - Oh, OK, here is Foreign relations of Hong Kong#International organisation participation and there are a number of other organizations listed -- World Confederation of Labor, World Meteorological Organization, yadda yadda -- but I see that International Monetary Fund is listed, of which Hong Kong is not a member, so I'd take that with a grain of salt and each claimed membership would have to be vetted.
- Partial or associate memberships:
  - Hong Kong is a member of the International Maritime Organization, albeit only an associate member (it shares this special status with the Faroe Islands and Macao).
  - The Hong Kong Red Cross is part of the Red Cross Society of China, but has special autonomous status. The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement accords a few other member organizations this status: Macao, Turks & Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands.
- Not a member:
  - Hong Kong is not a member of the United Nations. (FWIW neither is Taiwan -- the UN considers the People's Republic of China to be the only lawful representative of China at the UN.)
  - Hong Kong is not a member of the International Monetary Fund, although it provides some data to the organization separately from China.

Well, Hong Kong is a special case. If Hong Kong was geographically separated from China, there's no question that it'd be listed separately (if one of these buildings was in New Caledonia we'd certainly not list it as being in "France"). But it isn't. Hong Kong's status is not like anywhere else. Maybe the Faroe Islands comes close, not sure.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other about Hong Kong, but after looking into all this I was surprised at how independent Hong Kong really is, with its own Olympic team and so forth. After considering all this, including Wikiprecedent, I support listing Hong Kong building as being in "Hong Kong". Further discussion is welcome; maybe I'm missing something. Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use "Hong Kong, China" with the HK flag. HK should not appear to be an independent country, and uses this name in many international organizations. This compromise allows separate presentation in the list but does not appear independent. There is no single way that has ever been decided for HK to appear in lists. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That's OK with me. It'd be nice if we were consistent across articles. I was pointed to a couple other discussions:

Based on this, it seems our articles are split about 50/50 and that's a problem in my opinion. However, an RfC would probably result in "no result", so... Herostratus (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lof of the discrepancy comes because it gets hugely political and there are HK independence supporters willing to edit war and sock-puppet to make things appear certain ways. I've spent seven years on it, it'll never be consistent. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That's a problem across many dependent territory articles, lists, categories on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.249.113 (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

40 Wall Street and Trump Tower

40 Wall Street and the Trump Tower are both listed on the list, however Trump Tower is 40 Wall Street. Clearly the change in building name does not qualify for the building to be listed twice, as it is only one building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.85.57 (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Construction in July 2011.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Construction in July 2011.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top 200 is only 199

Just to let everyone know, in the next couple of weeks I'm sure a building under construction will finish and it wil be added to the top 200 list, when that happens, do not delete one from the bottom as the list has only 199 buildingsGuyb123321 (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recounted and there is actually 202 in the top 200, So know what I am proposing is deleting the bottom 2 Buildings to make the top 200 the top 200, does every one think that that is allright?Guyb123321 (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Chase Manhattan Plaza and Mid Town Tower are the buildings that need to be removed from the list, If some one could do that I would be grateful, thanks Guyb123321 (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate Map

The Map at the top is a very useful resource in this article, however I did a check to make sure every country is accurately represented and what with the number of top 200 skyscrapers being completed each year it seems to have got a little out of date, here are the following colur changes that need to be made to bring it back to present day

Country : Present Colur : Colur It Needs to be changed to

Japan : Purple : Blue

Vietnam : Green : Purple

Bahrain : Blue : Purple

N Korea : Green : Purple

Indonesia : Purple : Blue

Israel : Purple : Grey

Kazachstan: Green : Grey

If Someone could do this then I would be very Grateful, thank you Guyb123321 (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Northeast Asia Trade Tower, Incheon, South Korea.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Northeast Asia Trade Tower, Incheon, South Korea.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Tower

According to Emporis this tower has been topped out. Should it be added to the list? Longwayround (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait until there is some sort of official announcement of the topping out of Princess Tower. CTBUH and other sources still says it is under construction.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember there is no time limit and things can be modified as more information comes available. Also remember that the guys at CTBUH are human like the rest of us and have homes to go to evenings and weekends and they simply might not yet have got around to updating their database. Information on any site that we consider a reliable source (such as CTBUH and Emporis) is subject to change as and when it takes the fancy of the authors, and not when the volunteers here at Wikipedia might like it.

As for the Princess Tower, it could be added now, but while I have no particular reason to disbelieve Emporis, does it really matter if we wait a few days for a second reliable source to confirm. Astronaut (talk) 13:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok we can add this, and when the information comes, we will update the reference.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Shake Up Of this page

I Propose a radical shake up of this page that will see the section of alternative meausurements completely deleted, so we just have one table, AND on that table the number of buildings gets increased by 50 from 200 to 250 as now with new tall buildings being completed all of the time more and more buildings are being "pushed" out of the top 200, please can you express below if you SUPPORT or OPPOSE these changes, then if the majority of people support them I will make this change, thank you Guyb123321 (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Unfortunately, it is not as easy as new taller buildings coming in and pushing all the lower ones further down the list; new buildings are also being built between 200 and 250. Making the list longer just makes the maintenence effort bigger with no benefit to the article. It is hard enough to maintain this list as it is, without having to consider another 50. The biggest problem here, and on other tall structure lists, is the lack of clarity over the inclusion criteria for buildings under construction. I and many others believe a building should only be included once it has been officially topped-out. Unfortunately, with the tide of people coming by and adding building on a mere rumour they read on a forum, the list is constantly under revision. Especially difficult is when they do a partial renumbering before getting fet up with the whole process and clicking save. Someone else removes their still under construction building but doesn't renumber. Another comes by and renames Taiwan to "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or some other partisan edits. Please don't make it worse by adding more. It doesn't take long for the whole list to get in a mess. That said, I would support your aim to remove two of the lists, but do it by merging the three lists into one sortable list containing columns for all three CTBUH height ranking criteria. Astronaut (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Order

Some of the buildings are of the same size, such as Torre Caja Madrid and Wisma 46. What method is used to further order them? Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way of organizing them so they are just listed as equal what ever number it is so it would go

38 38 40

FOR EXAMPLE Guyb123321 (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The method I have used before has been to check the height with the article and verify the conversion from metres to feet (often people change one, usually the metres, but not the other!), correcting the list if necessary. I then order them by height and if I find a building with the same height in both metres and feet, then they get an equal ranking and the next number is skipped. If you get several of equal ranking then you skip however number are necessary to make the next diffrent height at the correct rank. So you might see: 32, 33, 34, 34, 36, 37, 38, 38, 38, 38, 38, 38, 38, 45, 46, ... and remember to do this with the whole list rather then give up after you have done a few. I often find a spreadsheet a useful aid to the sorting and ranking. Astronaut (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Dont worry, I am following that system with my updates, also sorry about going ahead with the update that you opposed, please dont delete as it has taken be ages to do, In regards to your worry that it will take ages to keep the list up to date, I will be doing regular updates from know on so it shouldn be a concern :-) Guyb123321 (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WE dont need an edit war

Hey all, I know that adding another 50 buildings is for some reason extremely controversial with one particular user but could you please stop reverting edits that have taken days to do and I literally mean 10am till 6pm, I have the support of loads of skyscraper city forumers some wiki members some not, please lets discuss deleting my content here before we do it so we can build a wiki that is good for every one, also the user involved in the edit war suggested just having buildings 250m + in the page - over a short amount of time less than a year that would actually lead to there being more buildings not less, so please lets just talk about it before deleting this content, thank you Guyb123321 (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the one response above (ie. my response), there is no evidence for "...the support of loads of skyscraper city forumers some wiki members...". I was tempted to revert the addition of 20 or so to the list yesterday, but decided to wait for further comment from others. However, it now looks like after seeking opinion, you have ignored the one opinion you did get, have not waited for consensus to form, and gone ahead anyway - that is controversial and maybe Mervyn was right to revert, even though he did it in a rather shouty way.

You claim that I think your proposal is "extremely controversial"; that might have been true if I was the only 'oppose' in 10 replies. How would anyone here know you had the "..support of loads of skyscraper city forumers" and why would anyone on Wikipedia consider their opinion important here? - off-wiki opinions do not make consensus when it comes to building this encyclopedia. Astronaut (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no more

You really haven't explained why you think expanding the list to 250 (and deleting the other two lists) is a good idea. What benefits does it bring to this article? Sorry, but I'm almost on the verge of reverting the whole mess you have made of this article. Please do not continue until there is some consensus with others. Astronaut (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really seem to be going against every edit I make just for the sake of it, the reason I think expanding the list to 250 is because I have been talking to lots of people and they all seem to beleive that there needs to be a larger list, and they can not find one anywhere, I believe that wikipedia is the only site with the capacity to keep a larger list updated, the reason I deleted the two other lists, was simply that it would be very difficult to maintain 3 seperate lists and looking at the 2 less used list it was clear that they had fallen into a state of disrepair due to people only editing the main list, so having one main slightly larger list would simplify things and make it easier, I understand where your coming from but as I have said before I think wikipedia is the ONLY site that has the capactiy to keep a larger list constantly updated, and also because lots of note worthy buildings such as the Woolworth Building are being slowly pushed out of the list, while extending it to 250 put them back, I and the people I was chatting to in a forum (Skyscraper city) wanted a top 300 list so as to include more european countries buildings in the list, but I decided that that would be too much, this is basically my reasoning for the changes I have made, and in my opinion the article looks better now than it has ever done, I do sense a lot of the argument against changes is just argument for arguments sake or not wanting change, I do think change is neccesary and in this case, I think it has worked Guyb123321 (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not going against every edit you make; I suggested a compromise - merge the three lists but keep it to 200 entries. The problem is that articles on Wikipedia are built on consensus and so far I detect no consensus for your actions among Wikipedia editors. Just because Skyscrapercity members want one longer list, does not mean you should right away edit this article according to their whims, and just because you got into a disagreement with Mervynbunique does not mean uyou are right and he is wrong. For an example of the kind of maintenence headache I mentioned in my previous post, take a look at today's edit by InFlames03 and see what he made of the ranking - not difficult to fix, that's true, but image if you are away for a day or two and come back to that kind of thing 10 times worse. Editing here is a collabrative effort and consensus among the editors is the only way an encyclopedia like this gets built. Without consensus, you would end up spending all your time fighting an edit war. So, to repeat myself, please do not continue until there is some consensus with others. Astronaut (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the Death Zone Section

Whoever wrote this needs to rewrite it before it gets put back in. It looked absolutely horrible, with bad numbering, bad formatting, formatting language just strewn out all over the place, and no understanding of the word 'death zone', which was twenty times the 'guesstimate' that the author wrote down. It was a bad thing to have on the page, unless someone does it right. So if you want to take the time to put it back, look up the building you're looking for, add its height in meters to the height (above sea level) of the land on which it was built. THEN, if it's above 8000 meters, put it down! OGatsby (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The death zone is at altitudes above 8000 m. With the world's highest structure currently around 800 m, the death zone will only ever become an issue if anybody starts building a supertall skyscraper at the summit of one of the world's tallest mountains. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be draws is that it was simple vandalism, and was quite rightly removed. Astronaut (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major reorganisation coming soon

I am currently working on a combined list of tallest buildings, to replace the one currently in the article, which will include all three CTBUH height criteria in a sortable table. I'll probably limit it to 200 entries because it is difficult enough to do that many, what with all the checking against other Wikipedia articles, and multiple other sources. My primary reference will be these lists.

Comments, ideas, objections would be welcome. Astronaut (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that we could get lists with every possible criteria for height. I can think of some, such as tallest structures of any kind, tallest skyscrapers including antennae (I know they like to exclude antennas, but I do not see any harm in having such a list), tallest skyscrapers including spires but not antennas, tallest buildings not counting spires, tallest buildings by highest occupied floor, highest accessible floor, tallest buildings by country, tallest buildings in Western, Eastern, Southern and Northern Hemispheres and so on. If I were doing the work, I would limit the number of buildings in each category to 10 or so, with the exception of the categories that have already been compiled. Additions to the categories would be welcome, but I would not want to do so much work by myself. Even the top ten might be too much with so many categories, unless there are websites with detailed building statistics out there. Perhaps just the tallest structure could be listed in the beginning in the more obscure categories. Also, the tallest in the country category would be open to enormous expansion given the large number of countries in the world. I am sorry that I am unable to provide assistance with this task for personal reasons. -- Kjkolb (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The three height criteria used by the CTBUH are: Architectural height, Highest occupied floor and Height to tip (including antenna)

There are already the following articles:

List of buildings with 100 floors or more,
List of tallest residential buildings in the world,
List of tallest towers in the world,
List of tallest buildings and structures in the world,
List of tallest structures in the world by country,
List of tallest freestanding structures in the world,
List of cities with most skyscrapers (a terribly inaccurate article),
Timeline of three tallest structures in the world (another terrible article),
List of tallest bridges in the world,
Many individual city articles (eg. List of tallest buildings in Dubai).

Astronaut (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep at 250

Really dont want to start an argument but I think it looks much better, however would support u in putting different ranks, but might be hard. Guyb123321 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to here to keep discussion in one place. Astronaut (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why 250? It has been over a 2 weeks since I started building a new list and I haven't got very far at all (though, I do have other things to do what with work and busy evenings). An extra 50 for no reason at all will just take longer to do. I also noticed the diagram at the top of the page - not only is it out of date, but that would have to be expanded to include these extra 50. Astronaut (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the Kingdom Tower Go?

It doesn't fit into any of the categories since it isn't under construction, on hold, or built. It's just 'approved', but it's the tallest planned building in the world at ~1000m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OGatsby (talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it doesn't get listed on this article. End of story. Astronaut (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Istanbulsapphiretower.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Istanbulsapphiretower.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone wanted to do something about this, tough luck. It seems Commons users have a much stricter policy to delete stuff ASAP (less then 6 hours in this case) irrespective of what CommonsNotificationBot might say in its message above. Astronaut (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting discussion with deleting Commons user: Commons:User talk:Polarlys#Deletion of Istanbulsapphiretower.jpg. Astronaut (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hanoi Keangnam Landmark Tower August 2011.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hanoi Keangnam Landmark Tower August 2011.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another speedy deletion, but at least Commons has changed the info a bit so you can now see the reasons. Astronaut (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abraj al Bait.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Abraj al Bait.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ryugyeong Hotel in Pyeongyang, North Korea on 12th October 2011.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ryugyeong Hotel in Pyeongyang, North Korea on 12th October 2011.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute on "Hong Kong" vs. "Hong Kong, China"

This is getting heated and a bit ridiculous. I've raised the issue on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and requested protection. Unfortunately User talk:114.229.251.187 does not appear to want to talk in any way other than the edit summary as he reverts. Der yck C. 21:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (and just restored it). It's formally 'The Special Adminsitrative Region of Hong Kong' or some such but we're not going to put that in the box, no more than 'United States of America' will fit in other boxes. Adding China seriously breaks the formatting by making every Hong Kong entry take two lines, at least when the page is a reasonable width. But mostly it's simply unnecessary to append 'China' to 'Hong Kong' when the context is clear and probably 98% of adults will know what and where 'Hong Kong' is (while the rest can follow the link).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong is NOT a country by itself, the category in this article specifically states country, so any buildings in Hong Kong should be labeled under their parent country of China or Hong Kong, China. Please read the article about Hong Kong so that you know that it is a Special Administrative Region of China and not a country by itself. Thanks! 114.229.251.187 (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong is a country. See that page for the definition, the list of countries by population, or many more of the 242 articles in Category:Lists of countries. Hong Kong's not a sovereign state but then nor are many more things with border controls and independent political systems.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so, then please undo the latest edit to the article by the IP user. I'm currently on WP:3RR so by convention I won't edit the article directly. Der yck C. 22:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have blocked 114.229.251.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 48 hours for edit warring related to this dispute. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has been discussed before (at some length) on this talk page. See Talk:List of tallest buildings in the world#The nationality of Hong Kong and Talk:List of tallest buildings in the world#Hong Kong subsumed into China, or not?. There appears to be no consensus, and that often means it stays as it is until consensus is reached as a result of talk page discussion. As the block to 114.229... shows, edit warring over this gets you nowhere but does waste a lot of everyone's time. Astronaut (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe very strongly agree that Hong Kong should appear with ", China" appended when it appears in a list that mostly comprises independent states. Particularly, it should not appear as the equal to its parent, China. For the purposes of a list of buildings there is no political issue, Hong Kong is just another city and could be country listed as China. Using ", China" is a good compromise between being listed independently and appearing entirely as China. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

To add - this also has nothing to do with the definition of "country". Pointing at the definition of country on Wikipedia (as always, we should not use WP as a source) shows the word can be muddled to meaningless, but in common English is a stand in for state. That common definition is what this chart shows and the use of flags reinforces that. Reaching for an ambiguous definition of a word is unhelpful, or else the counter, in this specific instance of Hong Kong and China is to point out one country, two systems. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

But Hong Kong is a country in common English usage. This usage may seem vague to use but it's defined this way so it can be used encompass different geographic territories without e.g. a speaker having to be concerned with sovereignty issues. So we talk about "country of origin", "country code". One might ask "what countries did you visit on your holidays?". On an application form or billing form it might have fields for "name", "street", "town", "city", "state/county", "zip/post code", "country" and no-one is confused by this usage.

One country, two systems is a particularly poor example as first it's a translation from Chinese, and such translations are rarely good usage guides for the language translated into, second its a deliberately vague political term which can mean anything. If it were ever applied to Taiwan its interpretation would be very different to that in Hong Kong, for example.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. In the real world we consider dependencies to be countries too. [14][15] The basic laws require Hong Kong and Macau to participate in intergovernmental organisations and international sport events with the ", China" suffix. But outside of international organisations such a nomenclature is redundant in general usage. Even if we have to do so, the common practice internationally is to use brackets, e.g., Bermuda (UK), Puerto Rico (US) or Tokelau (NZ). The term OCTS is poorly translated. Country here in this term refers strictly to sovereignty and to the PRC as a sovereign state. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong should appear as China for country. 203.184.138.132 (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User 203.184.138.132 (talk). It is indisputable fact that Hong Kong is a city territory that simply belongs to the parent country of the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known is as simply China. Hong Kong, a former colony of Great Britain, has never been a country, is not currently a country, and never will be a country. It is currently a territory officially belonging to China and referred to officially as a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (PRC). So the city of Hong Kong should be listed under it's parent country of China. That is undeniable, indisputable fact, just go Google this if anyone has any doubts. Anyone trying to say Hong Kong is a country is simply pushing POV at the highest levels and corrupting fact. This can't be allowed on Wikipedia, otherwise the information here would be false and unreliable. 114.229.248.214 (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a country. To save me repeating and so you get a clear explanation see the article, Country, for what it means in English. It is not a sovereign state no, but that is something different, much more narrowly and precisely defined. You seem to be confusing the two. But country and sovereign state are not the same thing.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Hong Kong is NOT a country, does NOT qualify to be a country, has never been a country and should NOT even be on this list. What Hong Kong does have is an automous government with some privileges of autonomy, that is granted to them by their parent country and parent sovereign state of China. Someone who wants Hong Kong to be a country apparently put the Hong Kong listing here where it should not be. In terms of this article, the definition of a country is that of a sovereign state, if you look at the list, every single other country listed is a sovereign state EXCEPT for Hong Kong, which should be correctly labeled under it's parent country and parent sovereign state of

China, that is indisputable. 114.229.248.214 (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@114.229.248.214 - I think you're mis-interpreting the meaning of a "country" in English. It is not equal to sovereign state, and encompasses a variety of geographical and political entities. Der yck C. 19:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary Mr. Chan Der yck C., it is you who is either innocently confused or deliberately trying to change the definition of "Country" to include a regional territory of Hong Kong which is just a Special Administrative Region of the

People's Republic of China (PRC). I know you might want Hong Kong to be recognized as a separate country, but unfortunately that is just not reality right now. Hong Kong went from being a former British colony to a current territory within the parent country and sovereign state of People's Republic of China, so please put aside Hong Kong pride because you are now Chinese.114.229.248.214 (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again country and sovereign state are quite different things, and exist as separate concepts because there are many territories which are not sovereign states but have most of the properties of them (separate laws, separate borders, separate trade relations). Rather than using something convoluted like "sovereign states and dependent territories" to describe them in English they are all categorised as "countries".--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I wish I were powerful enough to have changed the definition of "country".[/sarcasm] On the footnotes of the article Country, there are many sources pertaining to major English-language references that use the word "country" in a wider sense than a "sovereign state". My own nationality is irrelevant to this discussion, and I hope you'll focus on the issue at hand, and refrain from commenting on who the other editor is. Der yck C. 20:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have tried many times to avoid stating your background. But despite numerous attempts by ourselves to state the indisputable and undeniable fact that Hong Kong is NOT a country, regardless of what kind "definition" you are trying to applying to it, it seems you Der yck C. and your "edit war" friend Mr. John Blackburne JohnBlackburne consistently ignore the fact that Hong Kong is not a country and just a territory of China and persist in pushing a POV that saids Hong Kong is supposed to be a "country" when it is not. Their is no definition that will support this nonsense, Hong Kong is a part of China, the country that is listed should always be the real parent country of China, not the city of Hong Kong. 114.229.248.214 (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I refer you to Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth (serious) and WP:TRUTH (for humour, please don't be too offended)? Der yck C. 21:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, enough of the edit warring over this...I've fully protected the page for five days for y'all to get this worked out. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fact that Hong Kong is NOT a country, and this vandalizing imbecile Der yck C. trying to push his "Hong Kong" pride isn't going to last for ever. The article WILL be changed to the correct listing of "China" whether you Hong Kong people like it or not. You are Chinese now, not Great Britain. CHINA OWNS HONG KONG, face the facts you fool! Hong Kong belongs to China......undeniable! We are the Chinese Superpower, you are Hong Kong subjects who must obey the Communist Party of China! 114.229.248.214 (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Point, Panama City

Are there really two of these (131 and 179 in the current list)? According to this page

"The original height (275 m) was reduced at 266 m because of the redesign of the spire. Source: [16] & [17]

--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't read Spanish, but if you believe they're really the same building, then I think WP:BOLD is the right thing to do. Someone will revert and shout if they know it's wrong :) Der yck C. 21:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]