Talk:Mercury City Tower

Skyscrapers Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: Technology & engineering / Economy Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the economy of Russia task force.

It is requested that an architectural diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

Schedule[edit]

Some websites (e.g. http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=45047) say this will be completed in 2010; if so, and if the Federation Tower is completed in 2009, this will never be the tallest in Europe.

BTW, There's some renderings at http://www.archfwa.com/default.aspx?page=5&type=99&project=319&focus=4, but the license is unspecified. --Bobbozzo (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Now topped out (1st Nov 2012)[edit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/9648603/Moscow-reclaims-Europes-tallest-building-title-from-Londons-Shard.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyb123321 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "original research"[edit]

If I post a reference link leading to an internet photo of a banana and affirm in the corresponding article of Wiki that such a fruit is YELLOW, is it an "original research" to say that it IS its colour, indeed..? If I post a reference link leading to an internet photo of a recognisable Coca Cola can with a double decimeter next to it and affirm in the corresponding article "Coca cola" that such a can is XX cm high, is it an "original research"? If I post a reference link leading to an internet photo of a tower with its levels numbered with boards on the real tower... itself and next to it the corresponding plan section of exactly the same... levels, as well numbered on it..., given by the architect himself... (with his professional stamp if you want ;+)) and affirm that the height of level 5 is 20 m high according to the plan (and add a little horizontal line to proove it without a doubt if you want), is it an "original research"? In one word, is an UNDOUBTABLE photo an "original research"? Isn't it self sufficient without the need to be published first in the... Encyclopedia Britannica? Simply because a photo has by definition a special PROOF status which is different from an ordinary "litterary demonstration"! Thanks! Erdnisloed (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdnisloed (talk • contribs) 16:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I post a reference link leading to an internet photo of a tower with its levels numbered with boards on the real tower... itself and next to it the corresponding plan section of exactly the same... levels, as well numbered on it..., given by the architect himself... (with his professional stamp if you want ;+)) and affirm that the height of level 5 is 20 m high according to the plan (and add a little horizontal line to proove it without a doubt if you want), is it an "original research"?

Answer=YES. Synthesising several sources to form/calculate your own conclusion is WP:OR. That is one of the basics of Wikipedia. In any case, the Telegraph news article, listed above, confirms the height of the tower and that it became the tallest tower in Europe in September 2012. Sionk (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous! The simple description of a reliable photo is different from a subjective statement, litterary demonstration (there could be as well NO description at all, no comment, but just 2 adjacent photos at the same scale)! It is, by definition, and as explained by the Wiki article "original research" ITSELF : a proof "directly and explicitly supported by the source"! A RELIABLE photo is a proof! Now, if I only post the plan of the architect which indicates that this level 5 is 20 m high, is it an "original research"? And if I post below a photo with the level numbered on the tower itself with a board, is it an "original research"? But draw no conclusion between both photos (everybody will understand of course... that level 5 of the tower is indeed 20 m high!), is it an "original research"? Furthermore your article of The Telegraph... is false... (Emporis website doesn't say that at all)! : it is obvious thanks to the tower photos that MCT didn't exceeded 310 m only... in September! The photos of the tower MCT of August 13 show clearly that it lacked only the last 2 levels of about 15 m high altogether (their construction lasted a rather long time because of the complexity of the last and higher level). But that FALSE "source" doesn't bother you at all apparently! Only because it is published in a UK newspaper?194.153.110.6 (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But someone is clearly NOT verifying simple indisputable facts, or describing a photo. An architects plan saying level 5 of a building is 20m high does not verify that level 75 is 310 metres high. A photo on an internet forum of a building with 75 on it doesn't prove that a building is complete, finished or topped out etc. That is why Wikipedia requires reliable sources to verify claims, as per Wikipedia:OR#Reliable sources. User edited forums are not reliable sources. If the Telegraph newspaper is wrong, find a newspaper that verifies the correct info (it can be Russian or any other language if you wish). Sionk (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There will hardly be another article with such a viciously nationalistic and deliberatly biaised claim than this one of the UK press on such a precise detail. Are you able to find a publication with the list of the exact heights of level 30 to 35 of the Messetürm or any other... tower in the world? Just try! How many kilos would weight this encyclopedia precising the heights of EACH and every level of all the buildings of the world! And who would engage himself in such a silly entreprise? It's a number put on the real tower itself, not added a posteriori on a photo. Furthermore, the Wiki answer on the page of discussion of the general article about "original research" finally recognised that the plan given by the architect himself can be used as reference in certain conditions of full neutrality (above all IMO if the construction has been declared conform to them by the administrative body who authorised it, as it is mandatory in some countries). On what ELSE would anybody rely on for such an improbable publication, unless gifted for mountaineering???? Finally, you perfectly know that I just want to establish the TRUTH between the contradictory claims of both nations : and that they are both... right for the 310 m, if you consider either concrete or steel structures, as these photos... could show by the own opinion of the viewer!(Erdnisloed (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The Mercury Tower is not just any tower in the world. It will become the tallest in Europe when it is completed so it is clearly important the facts/claims are reliably sourced. Why is this nationalistic? Just find a reliable source that verifies the facts. I can't see how an architect's plan helps here, because they are drawn before the tower is built, not after it is finished. Sionk (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it mandatory to check the conformity of certain categories of achieved buildings in your country? It is in mine!Erdnisloed (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers (and other reliable publications with editorial oversight) normally check their facts before publication. That is why we consider them reliable sources. If you know of other Wikipedia articles that are wrong, by all means help correct them. When an unknown person posts a photo on an internet forum, that is not a reliable source. I don't know where your country is, but if you can find reliable sources there, by all means use them. Because this is the English language Wikipedia English langiage sources are preferred (when they're available). There are now plenty of English language news sources [1] [2] [3] reporting the completion of Mercury Tower, so I think this particular problem is resolved. Sionk (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources[edit]

To remind everyone again: We must use reliable sources. That does not include forums such as skyscrapercity.com nor does it include photos from a random website no matter how "obvious" photographic evidence might seem. While claims that the building was initially planned to be shorter are interesting, we cannot state this as fact based solely on posts at skyscrapercity.com; I have therefore replaced these references with a {{citation needed}} tag, amongst a wider rewrite of the lead paragraphs to reflect the recent topping-out.

Also, if you modify the wording or referencing, check that it still makes sense and is correctly referenced. I had to remove th sentence starting "According to Hamburg-based researcher Emporis...", since Emporis says no such thing. Astronaut (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Complete, or not?[edit]

The article claims the building is under construction, while the infobox says it is complete. Which is correct? MichaelCaricofe (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mercury City Tower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]