Talk:List of tallest buildings/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2014

Panama's Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower should be in #22 of the List of tallest buildings in the world because it is 284m high (932ft because of its shape). http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Trump_Ocean_Club_International_Hotel_and_Tower *this is a proof* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012073/Donald-Trumps-Ocean-Club-hotel-Panama-highest-building-Latin-America.html *also this is a proof* --Thankyou-- Dannyphantom0012 (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The section "Ranking criteria and alternatives" in the article describes how a building is ranked. Stickee (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2014

The 432 Park Avenue Building is not on this list, per http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/432_Park_Avenue it should be at 15th in the tallest buildings list. Jfish9 (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: My understanding (based on this, which this list is sourced from) is that buildings do not count in this list until completion, and this building will not be completed until 2015. (Note that completion means the building needs to actually be habitable, not just topped off.) It is currently listed in the Skyscrapers under construction section. BryanG (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done 432 Park Avenue was topped out last week according to reliable sources such as the New York Times. As such it can be included in this list. Note that the CTBUH can sometimes be a little slow in updating its database, but that is not too much of a problem if another reliable source has the news. Astronaut (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of megatall skyscrapers

J No reason to have a rather arbitrary subset list that is entirely subsumed by List of tallest buildings in the world. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC) --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no merging to be done. The contents of List of megatall skyscrapers is wholly present in List of tallest buildings in the world. Propose instead the deletion of the megatall list. Astronaut (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Add buildings

There are many buildings to be added: The Address Downtown Dubai (Dubai) - 302 m; Doha Media Center (Qatar) - 286 m; Lotte Center Hanoi (Vietnam) - 272 m; Bitexco Financial Tower (Vietnam) - 263 m; DBS Bank Tower, Ciputra World Jakarta (Indonesia) - 256 m; Kempinski Residences & Suites, Doha - Al Fardan Residences (Qatar) - 254 m; Pakubowono Signature (Indonesia) - 250 m; Palm Tower 1 (Qatar) - 245 m; Palm Tower 2 (Qatar) - 245 m; and I'm sure there are many more. Oldstone James (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Milad Tower

Milad Tower in Tehran Iran is 435 meter. I think it should be in your list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:c0a2:6450:844e:ce58:be78:7a76 (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2014‎

Milad Tower is not on the list because it does not meet the criteria for this list. It is a Nonbuilding structure and fails the need to "have continuous occupiable floors", as is outlined in the lead of this article. Milad Tower is correctly listed at #6 in List of tallest towers in the world. Astronaut (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau

I notice that Hong Kong is listed as a separate country, while Macau is listed as simply in China. First off, I would suggest listing Hong Kong as a part of China, since it is not an independent state, but if not, at least make the article consistent and treat Macau the same, since they're both pretty much the same in terms of autonomy.--RM (Be my friend) 07:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done The flag of China in the 'Grand Lisboa' section has been replaced by the flag of Macau. Oldstone James (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau are both part of China, I'm not sure why it's the only country on the list to include second tier administration units. For example, should One World Trade Center be located in New York State instead of USA? Mattximus (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of tallest bridges in the world which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

cut-off the main list

The main list is now very long therefore very hard to maintain. As result, the list is outdated. I think that 300 m threshold is reasonable and will make the list maintainable again. --Jklamo (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur. It's certainly difficult to keep this list up to date with the growing number of buildings built above 300 metres, let alone 200m+. Seeing as this post has been here for a few weeks to no objections, I've made those changes now. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Remove "list of buildings on hold"

This page is quite long, and I'm wondering if it would be best to remove the section called list of buildings on hold. First reason, is that this is a List of tallest buildings in the world, not a list of maybe one day might be one of the tallest buildings in the world. Also as per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we shouldn't include potential buildings, only buildings that are built, or at the very least being built. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Remove that table. --Jklamo (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed the table. It was also very outdated, with some entries listing buildings "scheduled to be completed" in 2012 (3 years ago). Disregarding CrystalBall, if this table is going to be present in this article, it should be kept up to date. JaykeBird (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

More up-to-date list?

http://skyscrapercenter.com/interactive-data/submit?base_city=0&base_company=All&base_country=0&base_height_range=5&base_max_year=9999&base_min_year=0&base_region=0&comp_city=0&comp_company=All&comp_country=2&comp_height_range=3&comp_max_year=2015&comp_min_year=1960&comp_region=0&dataSubmit=Show%20Results&output%5B%5D=list&skip_comparison=on&status%5B%5D=COM&type%5B%5D=building — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.33.135 (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

What about the CN tower? What about it? It's a tower not a building according to the criteria for inclusion. Read the criteria and article lead before suggesting other buildings for inclusion. Robynthehode (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Using bold and †

This is an excessive way to flag buildings that were once the tallest in the world. I suggest we only use the bold † sign or better yet the more common *. Thoughts before I make changes? Boilingorangejuice (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree, feel free to replace (or remove complete sign and coloring). --Jklamo (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Number of floors

How come the Shard has 73 floors in table 1 and 95 in table 2? -- SGBailey (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Second table is outdated. Feel free to update it. --Jklamo (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. /wiae ★ /tlk 03:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Phoenix Towers addition

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

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

Sections clean-up

Here is the analysis of current sections:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016

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

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

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

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

Future tallest / under construction

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

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

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

Requested move 4 September 2016

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

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

---

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

Background:

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

Is it worth the page move?

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

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

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

Opinions welcome

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Stratosphere

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

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

List cut-off

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

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2017

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2017

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225004217/http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/tp/wo/ to http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/tp/wo/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

How many floors?

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2017

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

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2017

I want you to add the Iconic Tower Grand located in Dhaka, Bangladesh which will be South Asia's tallest building. This building just will be starting under construction, so I want you to add the building title to the list of "Buildings under construction" and add in the notes that it will be South Asia's tallest and most expensive building. 2607:FEA8:A460:39A:BC7E:24EF:BEFF:55A9 (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the reference: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A460:39A:F96F:160F:7737:AFFB (talk • contribs)

None of these sources indicate the real start of construction.--Jklamo (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2017

{{subst:trim|

I've checked these links, and most of them talk about the real start of the construction. <ref>"PM approves construction of 142-storey tower | Business News 24 BD". 2607:FEA8:A460:39A:F152:4DF3:87E:267 (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: No they don't. Please do not open another request unless you have reliable sources that actually include the information you want to be added. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2017

According to one Wikipedia page, the CN Tower is 553.3m tall. However on this page, the CN Tower does not appear on the world's top 51 tallest structures. Reference this page on your website to help you: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/CN_Tower 2001:56A:F020:8B00:3852:6831:A975:ACB0 (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: First line: Only buildings with continuously occupiable floors are included, thus non-building structures, including towers, are not included. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2018

The second tallest building is Tokyo Skytree (634m or 2080ft) Source: 1) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Tokyo_Skytree 2) http://www.tokyo-skytree.jp/en/event/special/manga-design/ 8.41.214.11 (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This list only includes "buildings with continuously occupiable floors". The Tokyo Skytree is included in List of tallest buildings and structures, List of tallest towers and List of tallest structures. Gulumeemee (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2018

For all the tallest buildings tables in this page, Goldin Finance 117(597m) is missing. It's been topped out on September 8, 2015 and is gonna to be fully completed. Please insert this row after Ping An Finance Center(599m). Thanks! Blaccan (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Goldin Finance 117 is on-hold and never been architecturally topped out (although it was stopped in very advanced construction phase), so it does not meet the list eligibility criteria. In past this article has special section for on-hold buildings, but it was a bit plagued with buildings stopped in very early construction case. But we can discuss reviving this section with more appropriate criteria (like 20+ floors completed).--Jklamo (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2018

Please add "Only buildings with continuously occupiable floors are included" more explicity to table with list of tallest structures Beastthree (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Already done This qualification is listed in the second sentence. Spintendo      22:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2018

add World One Tower to the tallest under construction section source-http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/World_One Raghavunicorn (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: On-hold per CTBUH.--Jklamo (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2018

there is no canton tower on the list and is 604 m 27.34.104.208 (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This list only includes "buildings with continuously occupiable floors". Towers are listed on List of tallest towers. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Please fix the wrong info of hkifc building

29 Two International Finance Centre HongKong China(SAR) 412 m 1,352 ft (wrong info) 415.0 m 1,361.5 ft 88 2003 Tinyuyu (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: 412 m is correct per CTBUH.--Jklamo (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

30 Hudson Yards Height

CTBUH says this building is 1268 ft. The buildings own website only says that it will achieve the alternate height not that it has been built to that height. The height was modified according to the article page to the lower figure. More investigation and better sources to change height are needed before a change from the CTBUH website figure is done. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

CTBUH is a highly reliable source using single methodology. For lists using one good source is much better than combining multiple sources.--Jklamo (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand the reasonings that have been provided. However, I would also like to note the following:

• Emporis's entry on 30 Hudson Yards states that A.) the building has been topped out and B.) its architectural height is 1,296.00 feet.
• The List of tallest buildings in New York City, List of tallest buildings in the United States, and the 30 Hudson Yards article itself all also acknowledge the skyscraper's height to be 1,296 feet, or 395 meters. As evidence, the former cites this New York YIMBY source, which provides construction news on the city's architectural projects.

In summary, for the sake of consistency, the height of this edifice should be changed to reflect either the CTBUH information or the Emporis/YIMBY information across all four pages. Thank you. Hurricane Andrew (444) 20:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Emoporis is a less than reliable source as it allows user generated information. Although inconsistent other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as a source for another Wikipedia article. The YIMBY source does state the higher figure but CTBUH is the go to reference for all building heights. On CTBUH it says the building is architecturally topped out. Problem with heights is they can be defined differently by different sources. Wikipedia articles generally use CTBUH definitions of height (highest architectural feature). Of course CTBUH might have got it wrong but I think all Wikipedia articles should accord with the CTBUH height until it is clear that it is wrong and there is not enough evidence for good sources to confirm that. Robynthehode (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2018

please add the Goldin finance 117 to place 5 on the first list as, Goldin finance centre 117 city: Taijing country: China height(m):597 height(ft):1,959 floors 117and built: 2018 because the building has finally reached this height but is not on the list. Mray00 (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2018

Please add the Milad Tower : http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/milad-telecomm-tower/9389

: Not done: Milad Tower is a tower not a building according to the classification used in Wikipedia based on reliable sources. Robynthehode (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

CN Tower is Missing

CN Tower seems to be missing from all the lists. It is 553 meters tall, which puts it above One World Trade Center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonofaBranMuffin (talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

No the CN Tower is not missing because it does not belong in a list of buildings as defined in the articles of Wikipedia. Check the criteria at List of tallest buildings and check the criteria for towers at List of tallest towers and you will understand why the CN Tower is not in the first list but is in the second list. Robynthehode (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Diagrams

Diagrams are nice, but very outdated (a lot of missing later buildings). I do not think it is a good idea to emphasize them at the moment, even I wouldn't mind removing them copletely.--Jklamo (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

CN Tower

This article is missing the CN Tower in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It's taller than some of the towers listed here, and should be on the list. I would edit it in myself, but the page is semi-protected, and I don't know if I have the authority to do so. Please add the CN tower to the list. The CN tower's own Wikipedia article states that it's the 9th tallest freestanding building in the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityrailsaints (talk • contribs) 22:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

CN Tower is a "tower" not a "building" according to definitions used in Wikipedia. First check the definition at the top of this article and go to the sources such as the main one - Council on Tall Building and Urban Habitat. Also check out List of tallest towers which defines towers and has the CN tower listed there. Robynthehode (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Lakhta Center is still under construction, please change «built» to 2019

Lakhta Center is still under construction, please change «built» to 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.162.14.162 (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Lakhta Centre is architecturally topped out and is therefore considered built according to this list. Robynthehode (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Why original World Trade Center towers not included? Why not include destroyed buildings?

Seems lame. More so, makes list a-historical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.17.217 (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The List doesn't appear properly

Please fix the list of the skyscrapers. I don't know if it works on browsers or not, but on mobile app it doesn't appear as a list, but the code itself (which is probably wrong, otherwise it wouldn't show up like that) . Thas Tayapongsak (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

See above, it is caused by automatic rank counter (try historic version).--Jklamo (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is the 85 Sky Tower (KHH, TWN) not in the list?

The 85 Sky Tower with its architectural height of 347.5 m is missing in the list. Is there any reason why it is not included? I mean, it is a building not a tower despite its name, right?

This building is missing because the cut off point for the list is 350m. If you think the cut off point is too high please state your reasons here in the talk page. Robynthehode (talk) 09:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2019

Under the "Tallest buildings in the world" heading change

If the twin towers were still standing today they would occupy numbers 28 and 29 on the list (or 29 and 30 since it can be assumed the rebuilt One World Trade Center would have never been built).

to

If the twin towers were still standing today they would occupy numbers 28 and 29 on the list (or 27 and 28 since it can be assumed the rebuilt One World Trade Center would have never been built).

If a taller building is assumed not to exist, the aforementioned buildings should move one spot up the list, not down. 70.124.158.172 (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Article currently says "If the twin towers were not destroyed and One World Trade Center never built, the WTC towers would rank 28 and 29 on the list today." As the list stands in the current revision, the North Tower would slot in at 29 (ahead of the Princess Tower). Removing OWTC would bring it up to 28. NiciVampireHeart 03:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

even though the petronas twin towers are ranked the 16 in the world they are still the tallest twin towers in the world. its has been ranked 16 because its a twin tower not a single building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.155.171 (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• CYkj0MJ.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Lotte World Tower (April 30 2017).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2019

Australia Antonystad (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Antonystad, I'm not quite sure what you're requesting, but List of tallest buildings in Australia is already linked under the section called List by continent. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Vista Tower

Vista tower actually is 1198 feet because of the height bump which came with the blow through floor. https://chicago.curbed.com/2017/7/17/15983912/chicago-construction-supertall-vista-tower-design-update GDAJplayz (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the page - thanks for the note! Meatsgains^(talk) 02:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Listed height is per CTBUH standards and methodology. Jklamo (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jklamo: What makes you think Curbed is a blog? The building height is referenced in multiple reliable sources: [1], [2], and [3]. Meatsgains^(talk) 16:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I was the editor that stated that 'Curbed' was a blog. I may be wrong of course but that doesn't change the fact that the most reliable source CTBUH states the height as 1191ft. It you read CTBUH website you will understand why this is the most reliable source. CTBUH may well adjust their height for this building but until then it should remain the at the current height. Robynthehode (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2019

The last sentence of the "Notes" column for the Willis Tower say, "It is the second-tallest building in the Western Hemisphere, and the tallest when measuring by roof height", but since the completion of the taller Central Park Tower, neither of these statements is true. It should be changed to, "It is the third-tallest building in the Western Hemisphere, and the second-tallest when measuring by roof height."

Correct and updated information is already in the article for Central Park Tower (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Central_Park_Tower): "The building rises 1,550 feet (472 m)[7] and is the second-tallest skyscraper in the United States and the Western Hemisphere, the 15th tallest building in the world, the tallest residential building in the world, and the tallest by roof height of a building outside of Asia, surpassing the Willis Tower by 99 feet (30 m)." 78.151.141.85 (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The tallest building in Africa

The tallest building in Africa needs to be updated. The Leonard is the new tallest building in Africa. It's (234m) 767ft with 55 floors and was completed this year. And there are two Africa's. Africa and South Africa. South Africa is a republic and has it's on Independence. It should be renamed to Africa/South Africa Jehielwilliams7000 (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jehielwilliams7000: Do you have a reliable source backing up this claim? If so, I'd be happy to update the page accordingly. Also, the chart is categorized by continent, not country... Meatsgains^(talk) 16:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the chart noting The Leonard as the tallest building. Meatsgains^(talk) 17:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The tallest building in Africa is the Great Mosque of Algiers' minaret, which has 265 m (869 ft). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.108.227.124 (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Dalianinternationaltradecenter.jpg
• Golden Eagle Tiandi Tower A Under Construction.jpg
• Hanking Center under construction.jpg
• Xi An Glory under construction.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Goldin Finance 117 + Wuhan Greenland Center

These two buildings - Goldin Finance 117 and Wuhan Greenland Center - were shortly marked as Architecturally Topped Out, but they are now marked as On Hold. I think they must be removed from the main list. But unfortunately, there is no place for them in the current structure of the page. In the past, there was a separate on-hold section, but it was plagued by many buildings being on-hold from a very early stage of construction. Any thoughts? Jklamo (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that those two entries should not be on the list. Especially Goldin Finance 117, it was topped out in 2015 and is still unfinished and unoccupied. What about moving those entries to the "under construction" list together with an "on hold" note. This note would make sense for the Jeddah Tower as well, which also has a rather unclear future. --Kallichore (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2020

Please change 2,717 feet to 2,716 feet because it says here: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-tallest-buildings-in-the-world-2015-12?r=AU&IR=T 110.32.169.228 (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Although the Business Insider article you kindly provided does indeed say "At 2,716 feet, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai has reigned as the world's tallest building since 2010", the link within that sentence takes you to https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/burj-khalifa/3 which says 2,717 feet. That is the same website already used for references #3, #7 and #9. GoingBatty (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Wuhan Greenland Center.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Marina Torch, Dubai.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gevora Hotel.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lotte-tower-close.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Princess Tower - Dubai.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Vanity Height

Maybe it could be included in the article. That term is used in this article and it refers to non-occupiable space (height) and highlights the race for the records.

Maybe a (top 5) list of highest non-occupiable-to-occupiable height ratio could be included as extension of the previous. It is stated in this article that with 39% of its height is non-occupiable Burj Al Arab has the highest non-occupiable-to-occupiable height ratio among completed supertalls. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

We already have Vanity height article, that is already linked. I think that vanity height related lists belong to that article, not here.Jklamo (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect listing for continent Australia

Under continents, New Zealand has been excluded from Australia. New Zealand has the tallest building in the southern hemisphere (Sky tower). I would suggest either renaming Australia to Oceania and changing the listing to the Sky Tower, or creating Zealandia as a continent. Pjemus (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I see now that the link st is for continuously occupied floors. Pjemus (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pjemus: furthermore, just to clarify -- Sky Tower is not a "building"/"skyscraper" it's a "structure"/"tower". —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Automatic rank counter

User:Hadron137 added an automatic rank counter. That is a nice feature, but unfortunately, it has also some flaws. The biggest flaw is that it does not work with VisualEditor. Also, there are some problems with the mobile view. I am not sure if the benefits outweigh these flaws.Jklamo (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

My intention for adding {{Row numbers}} was to reduce the workload when adding (or deleting) a new row entry. An additional benefit is the reduction of errors. I overlooked the VisualEditor flaw, because I usually don't use it. If it's causing more problems than it's solving then feel free to revert. I see that the issue has been raised on the template's talk page. Perhaps a solution is in the works. Hadron137 (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It is reducing workload, but there are problems (see below). There is a phab task, but last activity is from 10/2018, I am afraid that no one is working on the fix now.--Jklamo (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if it's caused by this, but the Height to Pinnacle table skips the 14th rank, it goes from 13th to 15th (and there's only one entry at 13th, so it's not a case of tied ranks). --Kumagoro-42 (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Unproven claim

The article says: "Historically, the world's tallest man-made structure was the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt, which held the position for over 3,800 years[3] until the construction of Lincoln Cathedral in England in 1311". However, the Lincoln Cathedral article itself says it isn't known for sure if the Lincoln Cathedral really was ever the tallest building in the world (and I doubt we will ever know for sure, the claim referring to almost 1000 years ago, centuries before internationally standardized measure systems were even established). As the bit "until the construction of Lincoln Cathedral in England in 1311" treats as a fact what the article on the cathedral itself states is only a claim, and as it is not essential to this the article, I believe it could and should be taken off. Jlvill (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Jlvill The text in the Lincoln Cathedral article says 'With its spire, the tower reputedly reached a height of 525 feet (160 m) (which would have made it the world's tallest structure, surpassing the Great Pyramid of Giza, which held the record for almost 4,000 years). Although still doubted, this is the height agreed upon by the majority of historians'. While I agree the height is disputed the majority of sources support the height according to the article. The proper place to contest this claim is at the Lincoln Cathedral talk page and for you to provide sources that support your contention. If consensus is reached there then the text can be changed at the List of tallest buildings article. Otherwise it should be left as it is allowing readers to click on the Lincoln Cathedral link to learn more. Robynthehode (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

No, the article about the Lincoln Cathedral is correct as it is - it says that there are unconfirmed claims to it having been the tallest building in the world, even though many dispute it (and it is obvious no one will never be able to prove one way or the other). That article is perfectly fine as it is. It is this one that states as a fact what Wikipedia itself says is a disputed claim. But if you oppose this one, I will ask for external opinions once I have the time. Jlvill (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Jlvill Yes the Lincoln Cathedral article is okay but it is more specific than saying there are 'unconfirmed claims' - the majority of historians believe it to be true but this view is disputed by a minority. Again maybe the way forward is to add an 'nb' in this article which states this text from the Lincoln Cathedral article - namely that the majority of historians believe it was this height but this is disputed. Would you be agreeable to that? Robynthehode (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

As the mention of previous record-holders is not essential to this article, as most record-holders are actually not mentioned in the section and as the Lincoln Cathedral is precisely the only one that is unproven and disputed, I definitely favor removing the "until the construction of Lincoln Cathedral" bit. Not essential to the article, disputed and most record-holders (Cologne Cathedral, Rouen Cathedral, Hamburg Cathedral...) are not mentioned. Jlvill (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Phrasing

It's such an inoffensive edit I honestly don't think discussion on it is needed, but as a user has undone my edit and said we need to "discuss" the addition of these two words, here it goes - in the sentence that current reads: "The United States would hold the position of the world's tallest building throughout the 20th century until 1998, when the Petronas Towers were completed." I have added the words "in Malaysia" after "Petronas Towers", as the phrase is exactly about how the United States held the position for one hundred years until another country finally made it, and I felt it was incomplete not saying what country it was. If anyone knows of any possible reason why such an edit might be non-productive, please let me know. Jlvill (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I cannot speak for Robynthehode, but I think the appropriate comparison is to the buildings referenced in the next sentence. The mentions of Taipei 101 and Burj Khalifa do not include the country, either. The fact that the Petronas Towers are in Malaysia is not relevant to whether the US still holds the record of tallest building. Petronas could have been in any other country and it would not change that. Bartzyx (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Jlvill Thanks for coming to the talk page. It doesn't matter whether you think it is a minor edit or not but Bartzyx is correct in their analysis and it is the reason why I reverted your edit (twice). The country where the building is may have some relevance but that is easy enough to find by clicking on the Wikilink for the building. If Malaysia is included for the Petronas towers all the other buildings mentioned would have to have their countries mentioned making the phrasing clunky. Including the country is simply unnecessary. Robynthehode (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Jlvill I have just noticed that despite being asked to discuss your 'in Malaysia' edit you have simply re-added this text to the article without first allowing the discussion to conclude and consensus to be reached. If you are not a newbie then you should know the procedure about WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:WAR. If you revert the removal of this text again I will have no choice but to report you for edit warring. Also very happy for you to take this to 'arbitration' as you said on your talk page in response to my comments. Two editors have argued against your edit you need to follow Wikipedia policy. The correct thing to do is follow dispute resolution protocols (not arbitration) WP:RFC and WP:DRN. I will leave it with you. Robynthehode (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

One sentence up, countries are mentioned for Egypt, England, France, the United States. I beg you to please provide one valid argument as for why adding the words "in Malaysia" would be harmful to the article. As for rules on editing, it'd be nice of you to see that you have violated the 3-reverts-rule in this very article yesterday. Jlvill (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Jlvill Yes my mistake. My objection is to add any more countries hence the removal of Malaysia. On reflection this should logically be no countries listed after buildings or every country listed after a building. Your edit of removing 'England' proves my point or did you just remove that because I removed 'Malaysia'. What is your valid argument for removing 'England' if you want to retain 'Malaysia'? Yes there is WP:3RR but you flouted this especially as you had already been asked to come to the talk page. Maybe we can reset this discussion and come to a consensus. Here is my suggestion: let's decide (and come to a consensus) whether to include all countries listed after each building or have none listed. Maybe Bartzyx would also like to comment. Robynthehode (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the reason we specifically mention the United States is because of its significance in the history of skyscrapers. There were 8 different buildings over a 90-year period that held the title of tallest building, all in the United States. We talk about the US specifically there because otherwise you are listing those eight buildings out one by one and if you are doing that you might as well just use a wikitable, like in this article.

As for what should be done, I do not have a strong opinion and I think we need more input than just mine to determine consensus. This seems like a quibble because frankly, I do not think the 'history' section is well written to begin with and could use a lot of improvement or a complete rewrite. For example, this is an article about buildings, and yet we start by talking about the Great Pyramid, which is a non-building structure. The Strasbourg Cathedral was not even the tallest building when it was built; it only became the tallest after other taller buildings collapsed. We mention certain buildings specifically by name, but omit others that held the record between them. Bartzyx (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lotte World Tower 2019-11-12.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2020

I have an almost complete list of tallest buildings I worked several hours collecting data each one is verified with official websites or government websites or other Wikipedias. Can I please have permission to enter the data so it will be accessible to everyone. My Spreadsheet( tallest buildings in the world ) Deera Basuru Wijesundara (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Deera Basuru Wijesundara, I had a look at the table. It has 45 entries with at least 350 m in comparison to 74 entries in this article. Many buildings, like the Lakhta Center, are missing. But the relevant question is: Do you know buildings with at least 350 m that are not in this article? Can you give an example? --Kallichore (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deera Basuru Wijesundara: @Kallichore:. More to the point is whether the proposed entries are all buildings as defined in Wikipedia (and not another sort of structure such as a tower) and are the sources reliable WP:RS. Official websites of buildings may or may not be reliable as they sometimes exaggerate heights. Government websites can also do this depending on the country. The two most reliable and building specific reliable sources are CTBUH and Emporis. Other Wikipedias are definitely not okay as reliable sources. Please see the linked reliable source article for reasons. The third point is that all buildings should be equal to or in excess of the current minimum height limit in the article. And, of course Kallichore is right in requesting which buidling or buildings are missing from the current article? Robynthehode (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This list would be, by definition, original research and not acceptable as content. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I would have to disagree that the proposed edits are original research per se. The editor is just collating entries for the list in an offline format. It would be similar to doing this process in your own sandbox and then transferring appropriate entries to a mainspace article. The real issue is whether they are appropriate for the list article and whether they are reliable sourced Robynthehode (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Without any sources cited, the list is indistinguishable from original research. Bartzyx (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That's what I said. I haven't looked at their collated list but if it has relevant reliable sources it is as I said above. And if you read my first comment above you will see multiple points I have made about the appropriateness or otherwise of this proposed content Robynthehode (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Alhamra Tower.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2020

ok so how bout the cn tower in toronto canada geez louise Hellowhatsupguysomg (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hellowhatsupguysomg: If you read the first line of the article it explains why the CN Tower is not suitable to be listed in the article. Robynthehode (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2020

14 International Commerce Centre Hong Kong 🇭🇰Hong Kong 39 Two International Finance Centre Hong Kong 🇭🇰Hong Kong 11 International Commerce Centre Hong Kong 🇭🇰Hong Kong 54 Central Plaza Central-plaza2.jpg Hong Kong 🇭🇰Hong Kong 59 Bank of China Tower HK Bank of China Tower View.jpg Hong Kong 🇭🇰Hong Kong 61.93.86.124 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Those things like {|, |- and || missing? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Exposed Code

Under the section labeled “Alternative Measurements”, there is exposed code. I don’t know much about coding Wikipedia articles, and I don’t have the authorization to edit the page, but this very much needs to be fixed. NubNublet (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@NubNublet: I don't see any formatting errors; could you please be more specific or upload a screenshot to Wikimedia Commons?--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: I don't see exposed code using a web browser. In the android Wikipedia app (a lot of) exposed code can be seen. This is caused by the automatic row counting in the table.

Hint: the app has a "View article in browser" option at the end of the article. This version should work without problems. --Kallichore (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is caused by Template:Row numbers, see phab:T203293 and Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings#Automatic_rank_counter. On the other hand, updating of these sections is much easier, there is no need for tedious renumbering of rows.Jklamo (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Despite the lead's statement about criteria, there are structures in the list that don't match the criteria, and the one I added is in the lead and does match

@Jklamo: I'd be surprised if in the 11 years since that was added in Dec 2012 everyone, or even most editors, have followed it. Particularly "To be considered a building, at least 50 percent of its height must be occupiable6 . Telecommunications or observation towers that do not meet the 50 percent threshold are not eligible for inclusion on CTBUH’s “Tallest” lists." So in practice there is no consensus here despite the lead.

Not only that, but I don't see why we shouldn't include it - not including Belize's tallest building is disrespecting its culture. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Most if not all tallest building and structure articles in Wikipedia follow CTBUH's more than 50% occupiable criteria for a 'building' and less than 50% for a 'tower'. Towers using their criteria are included in a tallest tower list on their website. There is a consensus to follow CTBUH as the most reliable source. This consensus has been achieved through numerous discussions across lots of related articles. As to your other point re disrespecting a culture because a country's tallest building is not included in these lists doesn't make any sense. These lists are about buildings or structures located in various parts of the world and have nothing to do with 'disrespecting' a culture. Or am I missing something from a previous discussion? Robynthehode (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Robynthehode: there are a couple of towers that don't seem to match the criteria. Canaa (sky-palace) is the ruins of large palace/temple complex[4][5] - does it fit the criteria? Doug Weller talk 16:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I don't have time to read through those examples. Can you summarise why they are relevant. If they are already included in the article I couldn't see where (my bad?). The only reason for the inclusion is to give historical context. The Great Pyramid at Giza is included in the intro to give context and is properly called a structure (as all buildings, towers etc are) not a building. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hong Kong or China?

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

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

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

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

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

According to UN definition, Taiwan is also not a country but every Wikipedia page treat it as a country. The world is complicated and simple definitions often don't work. Alexanderlam128 (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong is a semi-autonomous region of China. Due to historical reasons, many organisations and governments treat Hong Kong separately instead of China. This includes Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. Data of Hong Kong is also separate from China like GDP, Gini, HDI, and even count of coronavirus cases. Hong Kong has its own internet TLD, country code, passport, currency, official language and Olympic team which is so different from China. It is therefore not suitable to use the Chinese flag in Hong Kong buildings data as this is a common practice internationally. Changing the "country" column into "county/territory" or "country/region" is also suitable in this case. Alexanderlam128 (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Alexanderlam128 Thanks for taking this to the talk page. I will reply at this talk page only. The location of buildings / structures - which is what we are talking about here - is a separate issue to GDP, internet TLD etc. According to the UN - the most reliable source in defining a country - Hong Kong is not one. Using the example of the Olympic countries also doesn't follow as Taiwan isn't a participating country but Hong Kong is. There are numerous examples of 'semi-autonomous' regions within countries across the world. For the sake of a geo-political location it would only confuse the issue to change these to the specific semi-autonomous region rather than the country/nation-state. For example the UK is made up of three countries (England, Scotland and Wales) and a province (Northern Ireland). This arrangement in the UK is also due to historical reasons with specific variations between these areas. London and the UK are in one the list but the UK is listed as the country. According to your reasoning it should be England for consistency. There are other examples apart from this one. In all the list of buildings / structures Hong Kong is listed as the place of location - just not under the country column. Happy to discuss and maybe need other editors to comment. But any changes must be arrived by consensus as we have already had this discussion above a few years ago and it wasn't resolved then to change the column heading and China to Hong Kong. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Citobun and Robynthehode, and partially with Alexanderlam128. For general purposes the word "country" in the English language already covers both states and territories (especially those inhabited ones with organised governments). 220.246.55.231 (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Edits should proceed to that effect. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Burj Mohammed bin Rahid, Abu Dhabi, UAE (from car).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2021

I would like to add the CN Tower to the list. It stands at 553.3 M tall according to https://www.cntower.ca/en-ca/about-us/awards-and-records/records.html And it’s the tallest building in the western hemisphere. I felt that it was a necessary addition to the page. 142.118.217.129 (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: CN Tower is a non-building structure (specifically a tower) and does not belong on this list. This is stated in the list's lead section. Bartzyx (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Rank 6 tallest building.

I am requesting to edit the ranking because apparently the one world trade center is taller than the CN tower which is 553.3 M tall. Additionally it claims that the OWTC is the tallest building in the western hemisphere/North america which is actually inaccurate again to the CN tower. Ksteuer95 (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

CN Tower - Toronto is missing Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2021

The CN tower in Toronto is missing in the ranking. Which make it the highest tower in North America

You can see that on the Wikipedia page of the CN tower: https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/CN_Tower

And the official website of the CN Tower in Toronto: https://www.cntower.ca/site_Files/Content/PDF/Facts_at_a_Glance_2013.pdf 2607:FEA8:875F:DE5E:48AC:3F4B:9DBB:1461 (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This list of tallest buildings includes skyscrapers with continuously occupiable floors and a height of at least 350 m. Non-building structures, such as towers, are not included in this list (see list of tallest buildings and structures). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2021

the CN tower in Canada, downtown, Toronto sits at 553 and you did not include that in the article whatsoever??? Please update it with this proper information, thank you. 166.48.33.240 (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See the section immediately above this one. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Exchange 106 (5-6-2018).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of (below ground) statements in the list.

Recent additions of (below ground) statements in the table makes the table untidy and messy. The information is extra, not needed for the main list itself. Should we revert back to just counting the floors above ground level?
(PenangLion (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC))

Number of floors below ground seems irrelevant when it comes to a list of tall buildings, as height is measured starting at ground level. I would support reverting. Bartzyx (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)