Talk:List of tallest buildings/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

2010

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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. HУтaяtalk2mecontribs 12:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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? =) HУтaяtalk2mecontribs 21:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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. HУтaяtalk2mecontribs 21:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
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* HУтaяtalk2mecontribs 07:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)


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)

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)


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)

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)
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)
Thanks daddy ^^ --SleepySheepy (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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. Reywas92Talk 01:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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 |-. Reywas92Talk 03:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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. HУтaяtalk2mecontribs 22:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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. Reywas92Talk 22:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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)
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)
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. HУтaяtalk2mecontribs 18:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)
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. Reywas92Talk 22:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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: [1]. 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: [2]. Several more sources: [3] and [4]. The image in the article, taken by Softjuice, do not show a construction process. Sorry. Jerchel (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

In the case of DMCLB it seems to be the same: [5] and the weblink to Emporis. Here another source: [6]. Sorry, I have to remove this, too. Jerchel (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

DMCLB is not under construction even not Approved for construction,

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

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.

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)


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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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.aspx76.65.23.193 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)

Two Forum 66 Tower 2

How come? mixed up with other Hang Lung Plaza? Matthew_hk tc 09:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. EaglesPhilliesFanInTampa 13:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

City of Capitals

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

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? --Tadijaspeaks 00:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)
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[7] Farmer's Apartments. It is now changed, thanks, jonkerz♠ 14:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

2011

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

See also: Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, One country, two systems, Foreign relations of Hong Kong, Politics of Hong Kong. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Use of Chinese language don't appear to address this issue either way.

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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

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

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)

  • 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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings/Archive_3&oldid=1136258940"