Talk:List of tallest buildings/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Aspire Tower

I am dubious about Aspire Tower presence in the list. It is more likely tower than skyscraper. I am for exclude in from that list. What is your opinion about that? --Jklamo 14:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed Aspire Tower because of lack continuous occupiable floors (see pic Image:AspireTowerDoha.jpg) criterion mentioned in lead section. --Jklamo 02:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree; the tower should not be included in the list. Rai-me 02:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Time to expand adjust list?

I think this list would be more complete if we added all of the world's tallest buildings that stand over 200 meters, not just the world's tallest 200 buildings. Using height minimums rather than designated numbers seems to make more sense. Rai-me 21:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Doing so will make the list insanely long and the article already is over the 40K threshold. It's already hard to negotiate right now, so why add to it? The page already takes forever to load. In fact, I think the page should be shrunk to satisfy size req's, but I haven't figured out how to yet w/out severe determent to the content. Once I figure that out, I'll ket you know, but in any case, I absolutely disagree w/adding more. EaglesFanInTampa 22:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

40K threshold? This does not seem overly huge to me. But I see what you are saying; the loading is becoming a problem. Yet I still think that some sort of height minimum should be instated, even if it is not 200 meters. Rai-me 23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree and agree with EaglesFanInTampa. Maybe 300m limit for all list can be considered and 300- content from top 200 moved to separate page. --Jklamo 03:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. While I think we need a height limit, 300 meters is just too high; it would severly limit the content of this list. However, dividing the buildings up into separate pages is a possibilty. But, if this occurs, I see no reason why we cannot expand the scope to buildings which do not fall into the "top 200" range, as slow loading would no longer be an issue. Rai-me 19:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

300 meters - 35 entries

250 meters - 112 entries

200 meters > 200 entries (AXA no 200 = 229 m)

I think 250 meters seems fair, a list of around 100 entries gives a good overview of the most relevant buildings without being overly long. Arnoutf 20:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright proposal, but I still think a ranking limit, not just a height limit, will suffice, because as buildings are built to ever increasing heights, they lose their relevance. Look at the six I had to remove the other day: they were part of the top 200, but due to other newer, taller buildings being erected, they no longer needed to be discussed. Having a height limit makes buildings that, because 250m is a large number now, will still be considered "important" long after their height is considered minuscule. If the current trend being set by the Burj Dubai and Al Burj of mega-tall structures continues, this list will longer than necessary. Let's keep it Top ###, but let's make it 150 instead of 200 to shorten the space. EaglesFanInTampa 21:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I diagree, and prefer Arnoutf's proposal. Buildings do not really lose relevance when they drop from 200th place to 201st (or 150th to 151st) place. A height limit would prevent these removals from occurring. If the list becomes ridiculously long, then the height limit can be changed. Any building over 250 meters will, at least for the present and the near future, be among the tallest in the world, and derserve to be on the list IMO. I think that instating a 250 meter height limit would be the best option at this point. There is no guarantee that mega-structures will soon be constructed regularly, but if they are, then the height limit can expand to 300 m or more. Rai-me 21:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

They lack towers

they forget the tower Bicentenario and the tower Bicentenariol II and others of the city of Mexico

Mile High Tower

Hello everyone , User:Fa9ooli has established an article about Mile High Tower which should reach a 1,600 m hight when the construction will complete .  A M M A R  14:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Shall we include it into the list of skyscapers under construction ?  A M M A R  01:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. As that is twice the height of the already-record-shattering Burj Dubai, I find it extremely unlikely that it will be built. Anyway, I don't think it is officially under constuction at this time. Reywas92^Talk 02:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging buildings under construction with existing ones

I think that we should really merge the existing list of tallest buildings in the world, with the frankly unecessary list of buildings under construction. We should simply add the planned ones into the table, but include the date they plan to be finished on and any other details, rather than seperating them into two tables. It would make it a lot easier also to compare the height of planned and under construction buildings against existing ones, something which I think would be appreciated by a fair few people. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am totally disagree. It is about probability, many of buildings never left planning stage, some buildings are cancelled or on-holded during construction. So why have them all in one table with completed (or at least topped out) buildings? I think current separate table solution is better. --Jklamo (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

World Trade Centre towers

Why are these included in the tallest height-to-roof and tallest height-to-pinnacle lists when they shouldn't be? Perhaps a footnote indicating their former position would be more appropriate. Opera hat (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a kind of "edit summary discussion" about it, but surprisingly no discussion on this page, so let us discuss it.

My opinion is to inculde them into the main table to proper position, but without ranking, italicized or on the another background (or both of them). --Jklamo (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why they should be included in the list when they don't exist anymore. Yes they were beautiful buildings and it was all very sad, but please, and with respect, move on. --Joowwww (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

CN Tower?

The CN Tower, at 553 m isn't mentioned in this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.133.123 (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because the CN Tower isn't technically a building; it's a "structure" and appears in the List of tallest structures in the world. The difference is a building is inhabitable on a permanent basis (like an office, hotel, condo, etc.), whereas a structure (in this context) is pretty much any type of tower that's not habitable (like the CN Tower, guyed masts, and "buildings"). Hopefully, that helps clarify it a little. EaglesFanInTampa 12:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Color coding

I think the alternating colors of the tables in this list is great. But it is very hard to maintain and to ensure each entry alternates. Every time a building is added, an editor must go through each entry to change the colors. This is very time consuming and happens often with new buildings being completed or topped out. Is there a better way to do this? Do you think it might be easier to just get rid of it? Any ideas? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has responded yet, I will leave another message here. Please leave your suggestions about what we can do so that we do not have to change the coloring each time another building is added. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 01:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the same thing be true of rank? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid there is no better way to do that. I was searching some easier way some time ago, i found one html attribute, that allow different setting for even and odd table row, but unfortunately that attribute is not implemented in wiki table syntax. I foud maintenance of coloring also very boring and time consuming, but i also feel that it improve readability of table a lot. So i am not sure if leave it or remove it. --Jklamo (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sagittarian Milky Way, I guess you are right about the rank. But, we know that the rank is necessary and the coloring is not.

Jklamo, do you think we may be able to create a template that automatically changes the coloring for every other entry. Instead of different colors for odd or even (which would not work since some entries have the same rank; i.e. Petronas Towers), the colors should change for the entry itself, regardless of the number in the rank. But, if this is not possible then I guess we should leave it alone until we can think of something else. I also think readability is improved by the colors but I find it very hard to maintain. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Petronas Towers

I strongly disagree with the Petronas towers being counted seperately —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.228.17 (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are two towers. The efforts to build them doubled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.238.43 (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nanjing Greenland Financial Complex

This building should be added to the list. It was topped out on September 6. The architectural top is 450m. http://www.njglgroup.com/chinese/asp/news_view.asp?id=201 http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=305916&page=32 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.238.43 (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is in the list in the under-construction section. If you can find a source that is in English, or is not a forum, then feel free to update the building's article and this article. timsdad ^(talk) 06:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have found sources stating it is topped out, they are external links on the building's page. I have changed the completed list to reflect this, and added a note explaining the topped-out status and the expected completion date of 2009.timsdad ^(talk) 07:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, now that this building has been added to the list, there's another issue that just cropped up on the amount of floors the building truly has. Please see Talk:Nanjing Greenland Financial Center for details (better to keep it all in one place). EaglesFanInTampa 13:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorting

I didn't test exhaustively, but there is something wrong with the "sort" feature of at least the first table. The Country names sort correctly, except for the United Kingdom, which gets placed before the "A"s. Trying to sort by the Floors or Built column produces an appearently random result. 71.242.202.228 (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You are corect about the non-working sorting function for Floors and Built columns. But it is not random. The tables in the article don't sort properly for all table heads that are right of Height (i.e. Floors and Built). This is because Height has two columns (for meters and for feet), so the reference arithmetics in javascript:ts_resortTable() don't work correctly. Clicking on Floors sorts the list according to Height in Feet and clicking on Built sorts according to Floors. Should be either corrected here in the acticle by splitting Height in two colums (Height in meters and Height in feet) or by fixing ts_resortTable(). Could anyone who feels responsible just split up Height in two separate columns for meters and feet, please? -- 88.153.46.41 (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional: While the list is initially sorted by Rank, actually clicking the Rank sorting link produced a non-numerical sort, where 1 is followed by 10, ect. 71.242.202.228 (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Height to Roof is Wrong

I noticed the table of the top 40 buildings in height to roof is actually missing buildings. It goes right down to 880 ft, skipping First Canadian Place which is about 980 feet, I assume there are more missing. TostitosAreGross (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed it according to SkyscraperPage's ordering of buildings to their roof height, yet some were in this list but not on SkyscraperPage, and some were in SkyscraperPage but not in this list. I left the ones that were in the list there, as well as adding others that were missing and fixing some heights and ordering. Hopefully it's all correct now, but if you spot anything feel free to let me know. Thanks, timsdad ^(talk) 09:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong, China

A user has recently added 'China' to the end of 'Hong Kong' in the list's country column for all buildings in this area. My interest is that the Hong Kong flag be completely replaced with {{flag|China}}, as Hong Kong is listed as the city in which each building is. As I am not sure about whether Hong Kong should be considered a country in this case, I'd like some more input before the changes get reverted. IMO, it certainly cannot be left as "Hong Kong, China". --timsdad ^(talk) 01:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why can't it? That's how it joins international organizations and sports. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Either the country is Hong Kong, or the country is China. "Hong Kong" in the city column is enough to show that the building is in Hong Kong. --timsdad ^(talk) 01:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a binary question like that. Sorry. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

This discussion totally out of scope of article, because it simply isn´t question related to buildings. In fact choosing Hong Kong, China ... Honk Kong, Hong Kong ... Hong Kong or China ... Honk Kong will not improve article, because all of them are disputed. So unfortunately no matter what option we choose, even it will be changed by anonymous IPs or new users to other option. Because of that some strong consensus about that, that will be kept for longer time is needed. I think the best is option is China (as coutry) and Hong Kong (as city), simply because it not list one information twice, as other options. But if there will be strong consensus about other option, i will join it. --Jklamo (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong is administratively different enough, and has enough presence in the table, to justify it. "Hong Kong, China" is an official name for Hong Kong's presence at international conferences and summits and is appropriate here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

If we are going to stick with official names at international organisations and sports, we'd gotta replace Taiwan with Chinese Taipei (and the flag too), United States with United States of America, Russia with Russian Federation (though it isn't really a federation), or perhaps North Korea with Korea DPR. Montemonte (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I certainly don't agree with changing all of the countries to their names used in sports and international organisations, as this is simply a list of buildings. And SchmuckyTheCat, please explain enough to express your opinion. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The other countries are nation states. Hong Kong is not. Hong Kong's special arrangement within China means it should be called out on this list separately from China. "Hong Kong, China" shows it is administratively separate but maintains the special arrangement Hong Kong has within China. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

In modern times only Japan, the two Koreas and Iceland closely resemble the definition of nation state, that is, a state almost comprised of one single nation. Hong Kong is not a soveregin state. But then if Puerto Rico appears on a similar list, I doubt if there will be any user pressing to display it as Puerto Rico, United States. Montemonte (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's now time to change it back to "Hong Kong" unless we have agreed to stick with official names at international organisations and sports. Montemonte (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I haven't agreed, so yes. I think I will do that. Unless someone has a really good point to make? --timsdad ^(talk) 00:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, don't. Doing so is stepping all over a sensitive political situation for the benefit of what? The political situation of Hong Kong and its relationship with China is unique on this list. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Leaving it there could be just as offensive! We need another expert opinion on this. --timsdad ^(talk) 05:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No, this is the compromise. The alternatives are presenting it as just plain Hong Kong for both city and country, which is unacceptable because that would show Hong Kong as separate and equal to China; or, removing the HK flag and listing the country as China. Which is factually and politically correct but doesn't at all show the nuance of the situation. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Well the entire point is to indicate to the reader where the building is located. If they wanted to know the political history of Hong Kong and China, they would look it up. I now pose my original idea, which is the "factually and politically correct" option: "China" in the country column and "Hong Kong" in the city. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed the label from country to location so neutralise this. Taiwan as a country is highly disputed. The country is called the Republic of China. But having the entry listed as "Location", Taiwan becomes acceptable, as now it is no longer defined as a country. Hong Kong is also a location and I don't see why it has to be "Hong Kong, China" now.

Speaking of joining international organisations, Hong Kong indeed joins those organsations as "Hong Kong, China" but with same reasonings, should we now change Taiwan to "Chinese Taipei"? I don't think that's a good idea myself.--pyl (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I now noticed that my proposed compromise is not accepted. Should I now change all entries on Taiwan to "Republic of China", since it is clear we are politicising this matter.--pyl (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that your action would sort out the problem, and it makes sense to do. Please do not take offense, but I reverted your changes because having a 'City' column and then a 'Location' column can be confusing. I know, it's very obvious that the Location column is for countries, but I think we should leave it as 'Country' until we reach an agreement. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Really, if you want to be so literal then the country column would be "China" or "People's Republic of China", as Hong Kong is clearly not a country. In mainland China, this problem is normally sorted out by saying "countries or regions" but given the space constraints of this table, the solution is not viable. That's why I changed it to Location.

Personally, listing Taiwan as a country is unacceptable, as it breaks the NPOV rule. We will need to sort out the issues with a neutral label.--pyl (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In that last part, I was just discussing that it can't be left as 'Location' as both 'City' and 'Country' fall under the meaning of 'Location'.

I'm just not sure there are any alternatives to 'Country' apart from 'Country or something' as you said. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole situation seems to have gotten out of hand. If Hong Kong were still a colony of the Queen, would it have been listed as "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? Or if Greenland were to build a world's tallest (though virtually impossible), would it be listed as "Kingdom of Denmark"? No; the terms Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau, Greenland, Puerto Rico, et al. are all internationally-known - if not "officially" recognized by side-stepping politicos - terms, whether or not the people are fighting for self-determination, and for the sake of A LISTING OF BUILDINGS is perfectly acceptable.

In 40 days this has been going on, more constructive things could have done with your time to improve the Project. Debating the status of cities with edifice complexes placate a couple politicians who can't learn to get along in a 21st Century society is futile. And sorry timsdad and SchmuckyTheCat, as you both learned, you can't please everyone, and trying to do so is also futile. Focus more on the Project and less on personal agendas. Here's my opinion - I prefer the status quo; leave it how it was before Jan 18: Hong Kong and Taiwan. If people want to know the political history/standing of both Hong Kong and Taiwan, they can click on the location name next to the flag to read further; those names are as generic as possible in the fact that they are both the name of the islands on which they reside. Per WP:ROC, this discussion is hindering this article since it has nothing to do with the content, and it needs to be settled and closed. EaglesFanInTampa 13:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, it's a pretty minor issue that isn't preventing any other constructive editing, causing any hard feelings, and isn't an edit war. As to your idea, Wikipedia has no status quo - it's a wiki. It would also be false to call the Jan 18 date as some kind of arbitrary status quo marker, because Hong Kong had some kind of suffix after it for several years before. Hong Kong isn't an island. It's a peninsula and islands. Hong Kong and Taiwan aren't comparable, either. Hong Kong isn't a independent country (without dispute). Taiwan is (with dispute). If the list is going to organize by country then it has to show countries. Hong Kong independently joins country organizations as "Hong Kong, China". It's not a big deal. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I agree with EaglesFanInTampa and his idea to leave everything how it was before, and you can continue this argument at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong or wherever it is this discussion is sure to be more relevant. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Burj Dubai topped out?

Comment moved to Talk:Burj Dubai#Final height. This is relevant to the ongoing discussion there. --timsdad ^(talk) 05:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Burj Dubai to be added to completed list?

I just thought I'd bring to attention something others may be wondering along with me; there are topped out buildings in the main top 200 list (i.e. Nanjing Greenland Financial Center, Guangzhou International Finance Center and Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)) but Burj Dubai isn't. Shouldn't we be adding it to the list, or are we still not sure if it's topped-out or not? --timsdad ^(talk) 02:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Tallest buildings labelled map

I've created a map with the top ten completed and topped-out buildings which you can find here. Burj Dubai is included as it is topped-out, as the other three in the top ten are in the main list (see above discussion). The map is similar to what was in the lead section of List of tallest buildings in the United States for quite some time, until it was changed to a map with the cities containing buildings over 700 feet (see here). I tried previewing my map in this article (to try it yourself, copy the syntax from my maps subpage and change the top line part: float={{{float|left}}} to {{{float|right}}}) but it is quite wide and condenses the lead section text to a very small size, not to mention on smaller screens it will totally mess up the formatting. Does this map have any place in the article? --timsdad ^(talk) 02:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have any opinions on this or should I just be bold and add it, then wait for the reaction? --timsdad ^(talk) 07:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sky tower, Auckland

Auckland's sky tower seems to have been left off the lists. It is 328m tall.

The Sky Tower, along with other concrete towers such as the CN Tower and Calgary Tower are considered to be towers, not buildings. Buildings are continuously habitable structures, whereas towers are either non-accessible, or only for maitenence. I hope this clears that up for you. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

sears tower got mixed up?

i think the sears tower info got mixed up -- in the "architectural detail" list its height is 442m, while in the "roof" table its height is 527m... 58.246.143.121 (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, it is correct for it to be listed as 442 m in the "architectural detail" list as antennas are not counted, so the roof height is used instead. However, as the roof height is obviously 442 m, this should have been used in the "roof height" list. Thanks again, timsdad ^(talk) 09:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April 22 2009 trim

I will remove some less notable or unsourced building from the list and put them here. Feelfree to discuss. I have rough criteria in mind, but typing them would be too long. Circeus 12:01, April 22, 2009 (UTC) The building is missing from the copied elements.

Name	Planned pinnacle height	Planned roof height	Floors	Completed	Country	City	Remarks
New Abenobashi Terminal Tower	310 metres (1,017 ft)	310 metres (1,017 ft)	59	2014	Japan	Osaka

Not sure I know exactly what you're doing here. That building (although it's probably a structure and doesn't belong in this article) was never in the under construction list. Are you removing buildings from that list, or adding them? --timsdad ^(talk) 12:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nakheel Tower

I have added Nakheel Tower in a list regarding On-Hold skyscrapers.Because the construction of this tower was halted due to lack of finances, the status is currently on-hold. construction will resume in 2010.

Colossal (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ref for every building

I recently did a fix of the refs in this article, and I ended up removing most of them. I only removed the ones specifically for certain buildings - only nine of the buildings in the list of 200 had a ref or two (an emporis or skyscraperpage entry, or skyscraper city forum). I feel that either none of the buildings have references, or they all do, such as in other tallest building articles (e.g. List of tallest buildings in the United States, List of tallest buildings in Australia...)

I definitely think each of the buildings in the under-construction section should have both an emporis and a skyscraperpage reference, and each in the on-hold section should have an emporis reference and at least one recent news article. What do we think? --timsdad ^(talk) 11:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Buildings taller than 400 meters

I am adding the section under the heading See also.. it is List of Buildings taller than 400 m

Colossal (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this article really notable at all? List of tallest buildings in the world contains all the information in that article already... If it was to continue to exist, it should at least be renamed List of buildings taller than 400 metres. --timsdad ^(talk) 10:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But this article will ease readers to find which towers are taller than 400 meters, and as well as the it will ease them to find in future which buildings will be taller than 400 meters... I think i am right at my point because Wikipedia doesnt have an article which clearly identifies the list of buildings taller than 400m..

Colossal (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think so. There aren't enough buildings taller than 400 metres to merit their own article. Anyone really wanting to see them can look at the very top of the lists in this article. Can we get some other opinions here, please? --timsdad ^(talk) 08:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok you are fine with your comments but currently there are 12 skyscrapers taller than 400 meters and in near future this number is expected to rise to over 30 buildings. So there are enough buildings to creat this article. Apart from this there are alot of skyscrapers which are in planning stages and said to rise over 400 meters.I will opose to your comment "there aren't enough buildings taller than 400 m to create the article"...........................................

Colossal (talk) 11:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point, however I would still like to hear others' opinions on this. --timsdad ^(talk) 11:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

119.237.139.18 edits

In this IP's first edits changing the Taiwan and Macau occurrences to Republic of China, etc. I left edit summaries kindly asking them to discuss the matter first before continuing to make the edits. After getting into some discussions on the IP's talk page, they continued to make the edits and claiming, in this edit that the edits aren't controversial. Obviously, if even one editor feels they need to be discussed first, they are controversial.

I tried to make it clear that, in my opinion anyway, if this person feels the edits they are making are necessary, and I think they should be discussed first, that they have the responsibility to start up the discussion, not me.

I haven't reverted the most recent edits on this particular article because they've told me to "bring it to the talk page" and to "stop reverting". IP, now that I've brought it to the talk page because you "don't think you have the burden" to do so, please begin discussing your reasons for your edits. --timsdad ^(talk) 10:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No I did not change Macau to Republic of China. Please understand what you were reverting with before you deem some changes as controversial and revert them. Obviously it was you who thought the changes I've made are controversial, and naturally you should be the person to bring the matter here. 10:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.139.18 (talk)

Okay well can you please explain exactly what your changes were and why they were necessary, as you left no edit summaries explaining what you did in the edits (which is what edit summaries are for). --timsdad ^(talk) 10:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright. If I have left something as "edit summary", it would have been "(Flag) [[Republic of China|Taiwan]] → (Flag) [[Republic of China|Taiwan]] (Republic of China)". 11:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is because {{flag|Taiwan}} already links to Republic of China for obvious reason. The name of the country.. or perhaps polity, is Republic of China, and it's known commonly as Taiwan. Yet Taiwan makes up only 98% of the Republic of China. It is not the entirety of the Republic of China. It's like calling the United Kingdom Great Britain, disregarding Northern Ireland. Are we going to change all entries of the UK on this list to "Great Britain", disregarding "United Kingdom"? 11:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the changes around Macau to List of towers, it was because Macau is somehow a dependent territory. It is treated as a country on other Wikipedia lists as with other dependent territories. 11:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I also understand your unexplained reasons for changing {{flag|China}} to {{flag|People's Republic of China}} to distinguish it from the ROC. However, I believe the flag is enough for this, and it is Wikipedia standard (see the country data template) to display it as simply "China" with the {{flag|China}} template. --timsdad ^(talk) 12:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Tallest

From the caption on the list's front page:

Taipei 101, the world's tallest completed building, is located in Taipei, Republic of China (Taiwan)

Technically this isn't true anymore because of the completion of the building in Dubai.bttfvgo (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Burj Dubai has only been topped-out, which means it has reached its final height, but is not actually completed. That's why the sentence specifically states "tallest completed building". --timsdad ^(talk) 08:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings by year?

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

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

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

Oriental Pearl Tower (dongfangmingzhu)

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

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

New Basis for this Article

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

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

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

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

Sky Tower

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

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

Incheon and DMCLB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buttons Broken

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

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