Talk:List of future tallest buildings

India Tower
Hi everyone who might be viewing or editing this page. I was just writing to say to could keep on eye on the edits of ADR 1000. I spent hours the other night updating the page only for this user to effectively undo my edits through their insistence that the India Tower is under construction and will soon become the tallest building in India. This is not true in the slightest. -
 * CTBUH (the governing body of tall buildings) classifies India Tower as 'never completed'
 * SkyscraperCity classifies this building as 'cancelled'
 * SkyscraperPage classifies this building as 'cancelled'
 * Wikipedia itself classifies this building as 'on hold' which still fails to meet the criteria to be included

Please use CTBUH prior to edits as it is the most reliable source for the construction status of skyscrapers in the world. If you believe a building is under construction than please use this talk page prior to your edits as they will likely only have to be undone at the timely expense of another user. Thanks!

Azerbaijani building and scope of this list
In this diff, editor removed an Azerbaijani proposed building with edit summary that this is a list only of buildings under construction. But, the lede of the article states it may include proposed buildings. What has been consensus (and decided when/where) for the scope of this list? -- do ncr  am  18:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. I see there was discussion of scope at Articles for deletion/List of future tallest buildings in the world (I participated there, and see it was closed no consensus.) The article then was clearly including proposed buildings, and a number of editors supported that.  There were other editors who wanted to restrict it to be buildings under construction, which some argued might be covered well enough in other lists so these tended to want to delete the article.  The article survived though, and the reasoning for including proposed buildings was supported in the discussion.  It remains to define "proposed" clearly:  include only those currently proposed/planned?  move previously proposed ones which have been cancelled to a separate section?  must "proposed" include having detailed architectural drawings, or being "approved", or what?  Definition of "proposed" must differentiate between list-worthy serious proposals vs. merely some blogger's suggestion. :)  Were criteria discussed elsewhere?  I hesitate about pinging all the AFD participants (who were: Fausan, Northamerica1000, KDS4444, Lugnuts, LabradorGroup, Orser67, GRUcrule, Ansh666, Spinningspark, Unscintillating, OccultZone) because of the "no consensus". -- do  ncr  am  22:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I was editing boldly as it seems there is an obvious division between articles. Already built buildings, buildings under construction and proposed buildings. There needs some editing to be done to keep this logical division between articles (tallest buildings in world article has section on buildings under construction but this article is already too long so this section should be moved to the future buildings article). Mixing buildings under construction list with proposed buildings mixes two different categories of building and makes the list confusing reading. There are so many buildings that are proposed by some designer but are never built that it becomes difficult to select which proposed buildings are of enough significance to include in any list other than one that purely lists proposed buildings. Similarly a list of buildings under construction can have buildings being built but also buildings on temporary hold where some of the building has already been built but not buildings that are merely proposed. I propose that the discussion of the criteria for inclusion in the current list articles be discussed here but I propose that the articles should broadly follow the criteria I have already mentioned. Robynthehode (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody has commented on my above proposal since I wrote it in March 2016. I will without further comment change this article to the proposed format I made then Robynthehode (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now started editing this article to correctly show only under construction and proposed tall buildings. Criteria for meaning of proposed and under construction can be seen at the CTBUH link I have added to the article. All visionary building 'proposals' should only be at the list article I have linked to - namely (and confusingly called) Proposed tall buildings. I haven't had time to change that articles name which should be altered to something like 'visionary buildings' to accord with the definitions shown in the CTBUH article on defining tall buildings. Please read that before commenting here. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Add a construction started column?
It might be good to see if/when construction has started on some of these buildings, it's probably a more reliable way to know if/when they're going to be built! Tom W (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Formatting
The formatting at the top needs a cleanup. There was a massive gap of whitespace. Put 3 photos in a table to try and fix this but more work needed. David Crayford &#9742;  08:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Tallest by City/Tallest by Country/Tallest by Continent
There was a recently mini edit-war over the two sub-sections, Tallest by City, Tallest by Country. I agree that these two sections should be removed as redundant (and incomplete), since the primary list can be sorted by city/country already. (But I also agree it should be discussed first.)

And on that topic, it should be possible to add sortable "Continent" column in the main list and remove the incomplete "Tallest by Continent" section as well. -- PaulxSA (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Under construction
I suggest to remove the tower "under constraction" from the list. the fact the foundation started, doesn't mean it will ever arrive to that height.

Imagine I plan the highest tower in my backyard. do a huge conference explaining the project and start putting 2 briks. that does not make me eligible to be in that list. To the same extent, the ridiculus run for the highest in middle east should differenciate from the contruction (plenty of "highest" announced) to the finished buildings.

As a matter of fact, the Kingdom tower in Saudi Arabia is so behind schedule that people is questioning it will be ever be finished, considering also that Dubai is planning (and building) another structure that will surpass that.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.207.239.201 (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add Dubai City Tower
Please add Dubai City Tower — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.40.232 (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Dubai City Tower does not fit the criteria of being a future tallest building, as it is only a vision and not actually a planned structure. Please see List of visionary tall buildings and structures.  Itrytohelp 32  (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Tradewinds Square Tower A height and rank
Are it's true that 775 m are Tradewinds Square Tower A height, it is the final height and design by Tradewinds Coporation , announced 2011 , 9 years ago , If someone know about it , please change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightybread98 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not about truth WP:TRUTH. It is based on verifiable reliable sources. WP:V, WP:RS. The most reliable source about such buildings is the Council for Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat and they state that the height is 608m. Robynthehode (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

On Hold or Proposed Buildings
It's quite obvious that many of these buildings shall never be built, as they have been at the proposal stage for nearly a decade or so. And many others have been put on hold, but not officially cancelled. However, they lack the financial support to ever be built. I suggest that we remove buildings that will likely not be built and arguments be made here. Furthermore, I'm removing any completed buildings, as they don't fit the criteria for will having been completed in the future.  Itrytohelp 32  (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me via my talk page for comments. Great you want to review this article and remove buildings already completed. As regards those buildings still in the list that are proposed or on hold. We can only follow reliable sources. So I would suggest reviewing the status of buildings on the CTBUH website (https://www.skyscrapercenter.com} and only removing those that are show n as cancelled (or no longer appear at that site). While it is frustrating that updates on CTBUH site can show buildings that have been in the proposal stage for over a decade, as editors we can only follow reliable sources and not engage in POV edits or original research. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @RobynthehodeThanks for your input. I'm getting started at trying to update the page more so. Also, while digging for more recent info on Shimao Shenzhen–Hong Kong International Centre. I found a completely different design here https://www.theaseandeveloper.com/news/2020/03/26/design-unveiled-shimao-shenkong-international-centre-shenzhen-china/1585197381. Obviously, that isn't a 700 meter skyscraper. My guess is that either this is only a section of a larger project, or the design completely changed. The latter seems more likely considering China's recent actions on banning mega-tall skyscrapers and stiffening regulations on any potential skyscraper. Perhaps, you've input on this?  Itrytohelp 32  (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The building is listed on CTBUH as proposed so that's the source to go with https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/shimao-shenzhen-hong-kong-international-centre/31585. Your link doesn't mention the skyscraper and we cannot assume it won't be built. Also I have removed Port Tower. It is listed by Emporis but CTBUH is the go to reliable source for buildings used on Wikipedia and there it is listed as a 'vision' building. Robynthehode (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Robynthehode Unfortunately, I strongly disagree with your sourcing. While CTBUH may be accurate, it may not updated right away. Wikipedia's P & G never says anything about only using CTBUH as a source. As a matter of fact, only sticking to one source is worse. Also, WikiProject Skyscrapers/Articles/Example, never even mentions CTBUH. While it does mention other sourcing like Emporis, SkyscraperCity, and other newspaper articles. I've nothing against CTBUH, I think it's great, but we need to update from newer sources. Which I will plan to do.  Itrytohelp 32  (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. However the sources you quote are in most cases against WP:UGC. CTBUH is the most reliable source used across Wikipedia. You will need consensus to use other sources that disagree with CTBUH. It doesn't matter if CTBUH is seemingly out of date, information in Wikipedia is not about WP:TRUTH but what reliable sources say. While we can discuss other sources this will have to be on a case by case basis. Please do not change details in this (or other articles) without consensus on source as they are very likely to be reverted. If you would like to discuss further please do so. Robynthehode (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Robynthehode No sources that I mentioned are remotely against WP:UGC. Emporis is widely used accross Wiki and every single edit made to Emporis must undergo reviews before being published. Users who want to contribute cannot actually publish any information. The edit must be reviewed by employees of Emporis. As people cannot publish changes- it shouldn't be considered user generated. It contains no opinionated articles. A clear pass of WP:BIASED and WP:SOURCETYPES. Saying that something goes against WP:UGC is fine, but please explain how any sources go against WP:UGC instead of just saying so. If anything I could make arguments that a specific time you used CTBUH goes against WP:AGE MATTERS. I specifically brought up using more than one source. I never mentioned changing anything without a consensus of sources. Please explain how any source I mentioned goes against WP:UGC.  Itrytohelp 32  (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. However you are incorrect in your assessment of the sources you mentioned above. Emporis may have some editorial oversight but it allows user generated content. Anyone can register and add buildings to the site (having checked the site for their information adding process). It is only after information is added that it is checked. In addition the quality of the editorial oversight would have to be assessed in detail and consensus reached by Wikipedia editors that that is sufficient to be a reliable source. Skyscarper City is worse. It admits it is a fan generated website with 'peer reviewed' oversight. Again it allows anyone to register and add content. Peer reviewed oversight is not acceptable from non-expert people (unlike peer reviewed articles in scientific journals which are peer reviewed by experts in a field of knowledge). This is why Wikipedia editors are not allowed to add content unsupported by reliable sources. Newspapers with known editorial oversight and checking of facts would be acceptable but they often use other sources such as CTBUH. I believe you have misunderstood the core issue with user generated content as stated in WP:UGC. Please note that many well known sites are not seen as being reliable because of their user generated content including Wikipedia and IMDB to name two. Using one source is problematic but CTBUH has been assessed, by consensus, across many Wikipedia articles to be the most reliable. Other sources can be used and are used but when they conflict with CTBUH it is generally the case that CTBUH as a source trumps the others. Of course this situation can be challenged but you (or anyone else) would need to achieve consensus on this. Clearly any source can have errors and challenges to CTBUH information can be made and in agreement between editors, not be used as a source for specific content. Please read WP:RS more broadly to see the reasons for my points above. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Robynthehode It's strange to me that you only just now checked the editing process on Emporis, even though you have been pushing against the source for some time on Wikipedia. However, you either haven't done good research, or are blatantly lying. Please cite your "research". The reason I know of the way the editing process works on Emporis- is because I've added buildings. None of the buildings I've added have been approved yet. Thus, they cannot be seen. It's been about four months since I've added buildings and they're still "in review". I challenge you to do the same. Try to add a building, it will take a very long time to get approved, if at all. Furthermore, I explained to you that I never suggested not corroborating my sources. Especially when using news publications. I merely wanted to update this article using more then one source to do so. Also mind you, that I never even changed anything. I merely suggesting updating this article with corroborating sources that may or may not disagree with the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. I will not be attempting to update this article in the future. I hope you come to embrace Emporis, as a reliable source for certain instances. Happy Editing.  Itrytohelp 32  (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To take your points in turn: I was double checking Emporis and my assessment is an honest one (but of course could be wrong in my assessment of Emporis as a reliable source). You should assume good faith with other editors and not accuse them of lying. This is against Wikipedia standards of civility WP:CIVIL. Emporis may very well be a reliable source. Your best option is to go to the reliable sources noticeboard and get input from other editors WP:RSN. If consensus is reached that it is, you will have made an improvement to Wikipedia because a second specialist source for these articles will be supported. In fact I would suggest you do this as the CTBUH / Emporis debate is an ongoing one and you seem to have a knowledge of the inner workings of Emporis. I would also say that you should not give up editing any of these articles - other editors' input is always good. Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavour but we all should follow Wikipedia policies. Robynthehode (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Robynthehode I didn't mean to accuse you of lying- I didn't assume that you did. You are correct, of course, I wasn't assuming good faith by suggesting that. However, I still do disagree with your assessment of Emporis. Fine, I guess I shall not give up on this article.  Itrytohelp 32  (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in this WP:RSN recent discussion Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269. To be honest I should have checked this earlier. The summary of this discussion looks like Emporis was still regarded as unreliable or at best marginally reliable. To be honest I am tending toward Emporis being more reliable than I initially concluded (although not as reliable as CTBUH) but as I stated before consensus has to be reached. You may like to contribute to this discussion because it hasn't been closed. Robynthehode (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)