Talk:List of tallest buildings/Archive 4

On the Death Zone Section
Whoever wrote this needs to rewrite it before it gets put back in. It looked absolutely horrible, with bad numbering, bad formatting, formatting language just strewn out all over the place, and no understanding of the word 'death zone', which was twenty times the 'guesstimate' that the author wrote down. It was a bad thing to have on the page, unless someone does it right. So if you want to take the time to put it back, look up the building you're looking for, add its height in meters to the height (above sea level) of the land on which it was built. THEN, if it's above 8000 meters, put it down! OGatsby (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The death zone is at altitudes above 8000 m. With the world's highest structure currently around 800 m, the death zone will only ever become an issue if anybody starts building a supertall skyscraper at the summit of one of the world's tallest mountains.  Therefore, the only conclusion that can be draws is that it was simple vandalism, and was quite rightly removed.  Astronaut (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Major reorganisation coming soon
I am currently working on a combined list of tallest buildings, to replace the one currently in the article, which will include all three CTBUH height criteria in a sortable table. I'll probably limit it to 200 entries because it is difficult enough to do that many, what with all the checking against other Wikipedia articles, and multiple other sources. My primary reference will be these lists.

Comments, ideas, objections would be welcome. Astronaut (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I was hoping that we could get lists with every possible criteria for height. I can think of some, such as tallest structures of any kind, tallest skyscrapers including antennae (I know they like to exclude antennas, but I do not see any harm in having such a list), tallest skyscrapers including spires but not antennas, tallest buildings not counting spires, tallest buildings by highest occupied floor, highest accessible floor, tallest buildings by country, tallest buildings in Western, Eastern, Southern and Northern Hemispheres and so on. If I were doing the work, I would limit the number of buildings in each category to 10 or so, with the exception of the categories that have already been compiled. Additions to the categories would be welcome, but I would not want to do so much work by myself. Even the top ten might be too much with so many categories, unless there are websites with detailed building statistics out there. Perhaps just the tallest structure could be listed in the beginning in the more obscure categories. Also, the tallest in the country category would be open to enormous expansion given the large number of countries in the world. I am sorry that I am unable to provide assistance with this task for personal reasons. -- Kjkolb (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The three height criteria used by the CTBUH are: Architectural height, Highest occupied floor and Height to tip (including antenna)
 * There are already the following articles:
 * List of buildings with 100 floors or more,
 * List of tallest residential buildings in the world,
 * List of tallest towers in the world,
 * List of tallest buildings and structures in the world,
 * List of tallest structures in the world by country,
 * List of tallest freestanding structures in the world,
 * List of cities with most skyscrapers (a terribly inaccurate article),
 * Timeline of three tallest structures in the world (another terrible article),
 * List of tallest bridges in the world,
 * Many individual city articles (eg. List of tallest buildings in Dubai).
 * Astronaut (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please Keep at 250
Really dont want to start an argument but I think it looks much better, however would support u in putting different ranks, but might be hard. Guyb123321 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved to here to keep discussion in one place. Astronaut (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why 250? It has been over a 2 weeks since I started building a new list and I haven't got very far at all (though, I do have other things to do what with work and busy evenings).  An extra 50 for no reason at all will just take longer to do.  I also noticed the diagram at the top of the page - not only is it out of date, but that would have to be expanded to include these extra 50.  Astronaut (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Where does the Kingdom Tower Go?
It doesn't fit into any of the categories since it isn't under construction, on hold, or built. It's just 'approved', but it's the tallest planned building in the world at ~1000m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OGatsby (talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So it doesn't get listed on this article. End of story.  Astronaut (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Istanbulsapphiretower.jpg Nominated for Deletion

 * In case anyone wanted to do something about this, tough luck. It seems Commons users have a much stricter policy to delete stuff ASAP (less then 6 hours in this case) irrespective of what CommonsNotificationBot might say in its message above.  Astronaut (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting discussion with deleting Commons user: Commons:User talk:Polarlys. Astronaut (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Hanoi Keangnam Landmark Tower August 2011.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

 * Yet another speedy deletion, but at least Commons has changed the info a bit so you can now see the reasons. Astronaut (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The Point, Panama City
Are there really two of these (131 and 179 in the current list)? According to this page
 * "The original height (275 m) was reduced at 266 m because of the redesign of the spire. Source: &

-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Can't read Spanish, but if you believe they're really the same building, then I think WP:BOLD is the right thing to do. Someone will revert and shout if they know it's wrong :) Deryck C. 21:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done it now it's unprotected. Someone helpfully created an article for the building in the interim which matches the sources above as further confirmation.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Post any edits that need doing here
U/C - Diamond Tower CD is 2014 Guyb123321 (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Princess Tower 	414 m (1,358 ft) 	414 m (1,358 ft) 	101 	2012 	 UAE 	Dubai - Now Completed Guyb123321 (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have an external source to support your edit? Deryck C. 12:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, Trawling Forums, Princess is definatly completed or at least topped out and Diamond is TENTATIVELY scheduled for completion in late 2014, however apparantly that could easily slip to 2015, but thought putting 2014 is better than having nothing,Guyb123321 (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you please provide the link to the external source which supports this new piece of information? Deryck C. 16:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What Guyb needs to supply is a reliable source. Forums are not reliable sources.  Astronaut (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Um OK, if it has images then does it make it reliable (For the topped out building) ??? Guyb123321 (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you tell topped out from nearly topped out? I'm not sure I could.  Astronaut (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Map
The Map is a useful feature I admit but it needs updating and I dont mean to make it a top 250 map, I mean just top 200, I posted some stuff that needs doing ages ago and it never got done, so if no one is going to do it I think we will have to delete the map. Guyb123321 (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly, the map could be a nightmare to maintain. When the list was expanded to 250 items, it immediately became a bit pointless as well.  That said, I am in the middle of compiling a definitive up-to-date list from the CTBUH database.  I have editied the map before so I could also have a go at the map again.  I'm busy IRL, so it might take a while, but lets leave it for a few weeks.  Astronaut (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent New Resource from the CTBUH
Just found this http://skyscrapercenter.com/create.php?search=yes&status_COM=on&type_building=on site from the CTBUH that could help with editing this page, tell me what you thinkGuyb123321 (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the information I have been using to compile the updated list I mentioned above. It is not exactly new however.  The CTBUH recently (ie. within the last couple of weeks) moved their database search from the ctbuh.org domain to skyscrapercenter.com.  The database itself has been in existance for much longer (at least the last 6 years) and is a much more reliable source than forums like skyscrapercity.  Astronaut (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

New draft list
As promised, I have been working on a new list based on data available from the CTBUH tall building database. So far, I have mocked up some example rows on this page: User:Astronaut/Sandbox1. Don't worry about the ranking of equal height buildings or the lack of country/city linking, that is something I'll fix up later, and the final list will run to 250 entries.

Comments are welcome, here or at the bottom of the sandbox page. I'm a little worried it could be too wide or with too many columns - for example, would it be better without the "building function" and "floor area" columns? Astronaut (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU, the list looks really good and am really glad it is going to run to 250 entries :-), A few thoughts though,
 * 1. Will there be flags on your new list like the old list
 * 2. To make the list simpler maybe just as a suggestion just have height occupied and height to tip/height architectural.
 * 3. Maybe certain words will be shortened to make the list smaller for instance "completion" could become "Built" and things like that.
 * These are all just ideas and please dont feel as if you have to agree, but overall it looks like a great start, well done Astronaut.Guyb123321 (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comments.
 * 1. I probably won't use flags. Some people think they detract from the look of the article (see MOS:FLAG), and of course each country will be linked once.  I also think that flags complicate issues like that above with Hong Kong.
 * 2. I would like to keep all three heights, since these are the three that the CTBUH uses to assess record holders.
 * 3. A good idea. I would like to avoid abbreviations, but choosing shorter words is definitely something worth considering.
 * Once I get a list of countries sorted out, I'll rework the map. Astronaut (talk) 19:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool sounds good, thanks again for keeping the list at 250 entries, also do you think that the "under construction" and "on hold" tabs should be changed in any way??? Guyb123321 (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll try to do the same with them later. It takes quite a while hacking the data from CTBUH into a list in the Wiki-markup (a good few hours at a minimum).  Astronaut (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

40 Wall Street = The Trump Building?
The list as it stands shows 40 Wall Street and The Trump Building in a tie for 100th place. However, their links go to the same article, which explains that "The Trump Building" is the present official name for the building better known as 40 Wall Street. That is, the two names refer to a single building. I would merge the entries on the table, but it would be a lot of work to manually renumber everything lower, and (more importantly) the vital statistics listed in the entries don't match. How can this be resolved? 99.157.206.199 (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One of them should be removed. However, see the question immediately above, where I state my intention to rework the entire list in a few days.  Astronaut (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute on "Hong Kong" vs. "Hong Kong, China"
This is getting heated and a bit ridiculous. I've raised the issue on Dispute resolution noticeboard and requested protection. Unfortunately User talk:114.229.251.187 does not appear to want to talk in any way other than the edit summary as he reverts. Deryck C. 21:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree (and just restored it). It's formally 'The Special Adminsitrative Region of Hong Kong' or some such but we're not going to put that in the box, no more than 'United States of America' will fit in other boxes. Adding China seriously breaks the formatting by making every Hong Kong entry take two lines, at least when the page is a reasonable width. But mostly it's simply unnecessary to append 'China' to 'Hong Kong' when the context is clear and probably 98% of adults will know what and where 'Hong Kong' is (while the rest can follow the link).-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hong Kong is NOT a country by itself, the category in this article specifically states country, so any buildings in Hong Kong should be labeled under their parent country of China or Hong Kong, China. Please read the article about Hong Kong so that you know that it is a Special Administrative Region of China and not a country by itself. Thanks! 114.229.251.187 (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hong Kong is a country. See that page for the definition, the list of countries by population, or many more of the 242 articles in Category:Lists of countries. Hong Kong's not a sovereign state but then nor are many more things with border controls and independent political systems.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you think so, then please undo the latest edit to the article by the IP user. I'm currently on WP:3RR so by convention I won't edit the article directly. Deryck C. 22:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked 48 hours for edit warring related to this dispute. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The subject has been discussed before (at some length) on this talk page. See Talk:List of tallest buildings in the world and Talk:List of tallest buildings in the world.  There appears to be no consensus, and that often means it stays as it is until consensus is reached as a result of talk page discussion.  As the block to 114.229... shows, edit warring over this gets you nowhere but does waste a lot of everyone's time.  Astronaut (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe very strongly agree that Hong Kong should appear with ", China" appended when it appears in a list that mostly comprises independent states. Particularly, it should not appear as the equal to its parent, China. For the purposes of a list of buildings there is no political issue, Hong Kong is just another city and could be country listed as China. Using ", China" is a good compromise between being listed independently and appearing entirely as China. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * To add - this also has nothing to do with the definition of "country". Pointing at the definition of country on Wikipedia (as always, we should not use WP as a source) shows the word can be muddled to meaningless, but in common English is a stand in for state. That common definition is what this chart shows and the use of flags reinforces that. Reaching for an ambiguous definition of a word is unhelpful, or else the counter, in this specific instance of Hong Kong and China is to point out one country, two systems. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * But Hong Kong is a country in common English usage. This usage may seem vague to use but it's defined this way so it can be used encompass different geographic territories without e.g. a speaker having to be concerned with sovereignty issues. So we talk about "country of origin", "country code". One might ask "what countries did you visit on your holidays?". On an application form or billing form it might have fields for "name", "street", "town", "city", "state/county", "zip/post code", "country" and no-one is confused by this usage.
 * One country, two systems is a particularly poor example as first it's a translation from Chinese, and such translations are rarely good usage guides for the language translated into, second its a deliberately vague political term which can mean anything. If it were ever applied to Taiwan its interpretation would be very different to that in Hong Kong, for example.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's the point. In the real world we consider dependencies to be countries too. The basic laws require Hong Kong and Macau to participate in intergovernmental organisations and international sport events with the ", China" suffix. But outside of international organisations such a nomenclature is redundant in general usage. Even if we have to do so, the common practice internationally is to use brackets, e.g., Bermuda (UK), Puerto Rico (US) or Tokelau (NZ). The term OCTS is poorly translated. Country here in this term refers strictly to sovereignty and to the PRC as a sovereign state. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)  Blocked as sock


 * Hong Kong should appear as China for country. 203.184.138.132 (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with User 203.184.138.132 (talk). It is indisputable fact that Hong Kong is a city territory that simply belongs to the parent country of the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known  is as simply China.  Hong Kong, a former colony of Great Britain, has never been a country, is not currently a country, and never will be a country.  It is currently a territory officially belonging to China and referred to officially as a Special Administrative Region of the  People's Republic of China (PRC).  So the city of Hong Kong should be listed under it's parent country of  China. That is undeniable, indisputable fact, just go Google this if anyone has any doubts. Anyone trying to say Hong Kong is a country is simply pushing POV at the highest levels and corrupting fact.  This can't be allowed on Wikipedia, otherwise the information here would be false and unreliable.  114.229.248.214 (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a country. To save me repeating and so you get a clear explanation see the article, Country, for what it means in English. It is not a sovereign state no, but that is something different, much more narrowly and precisely defined. You seem to be confusing the two. But country and sovereign state are not the same thing.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, Hong Kong is NOT a country, does NOT qualify to be a country, has never been a country and should NOT even be on this list. What Hong Kong does have is an automous government with some privileges of autonomy, that is granted to them by their parent country and parent sovereign state of China. Someone who wants Hong Kong to be a country apparently put the Hong Kong listing here where it should not be. In terms of this article, the definition of a country is that of a sovereign state, if you look at the list, every single other country listed is a sovereign state EXCEPT for Hong Kong, which should be correctly labeled under it's parent country and parent sovereign state of  China, that is indisputable. 114.229.248.214 (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @114.229.248.214 - I think you're mis-interpreting the meaning of a "country" in English. It is not equal to sovereign state, and encompasses a variety of geographical and political entities. Deryck C. 19:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * On the contrary Mr. Chan Deryck C., it is you who is either innocently confused or deliberately trying to change the definition of "Country" to include a regional territory of Hong Kong which is just a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (PRC). I know you might want Hong Kong to be recognized as a separate country, but unfortunately that is just not reality right now.  Hong Kong went from being a former British colony to a current territory within the parent country and sovereign state of People's Republic of China, so please put aside Hong Kong pride because you are now Chinese.114.229.248.214 (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Again country and sovereign state are quite different things, and exist as separate concepts because there are many territories which are not sovereign states but have most of the properties of them (separate laws, separate borders, separate trade relations). Rather than using something convoluted like "sovereign states and dependent territories" to describe them in English they are all categorised as "countries".-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish I were powerful enough to have changed the definition of "country".[/sarcasm] On the footnotes of the article Country, there are many sources pertaining to major English-language references that use the word "country" in a wider sense than a "sovereign state". My own nationality is irrelevant to this discussion, and I hope you'll focus on the issue at hand, and refrain from commenting on who the other editor is. Deryck C. 20:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We have tried many times to avoid stating your background. But despite numerous attempts by ourselves to state the indisputable and undeniable fact that Hong Kong is NOT a country, regardless of what kind "definition" you are trying to applying to it, it seems you Deryck C. and your "edit war" friend Mr. John Blackburne JohnBlackburne consistently ignore the fact that Hong Kong is not a country and just a territory of China and persist in pushing a POV that saids Hong Kong is supposed to be a "country" when it is not. Their is no definition that will support this nonsense, Hong Kong is a part of China, the country that is listed should always be the real parent country of China, not the city of Hong Kong.  114.229.248.214 (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * May I refer you to Verifiability, not truth (serious) and WP:TRUTH (for humour, please don't be too offended)? Deryck C. 21:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, enough of the edit warring over this...I've fully protected the page for five days for y'all to get this worked out. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 21:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being a calm admin here. Unfortunately with the two participating IP editors asserting WP:Truth and making personal attacks, I don't really think this discussion will go anywhere as it currently stands. Deryck C. 21:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a fact that Hong Kong is NOT a country, and this vandalizing imbecile Deryck C. trying to push his "Hong Kong" pride isn't going to last for ever. The article WILL be changed to the correct listing of "China" whether you Hong Kong people like it or not.  You are Chinese now, not Great Britain.  CHINA OWNS HONG KONG, face the facts you fool! Hong Kong belongs to China......undeniable! We are the Chinese Superpower, you are Hong Kong subjects who must obey the Communist Party of China! 114.229.248.214 (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And that lovely gem has earned 114.229.248.214 a 24 hour vacation from Wikipedia. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 21:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Doing a semi-protect rather than a full-protect on the article should do the trick. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above editor, Hong Kong is not a country by any means. The country should be listed as China in the article. 117.90.75.14 (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping Hong Kong as just "Hong Kong," with the ", China". I don't know if this is going to help, but these are the reasons why: I'm not sure if that will make much of a difference to the "Hong Kong, China" crowd, but if you guys could respond to these reasons one-by-one as to why I'm wrong, then I'd be happy to support "Hong Kong, China." Until then, consider me on the side of just "Hong Kong." --Nick2253 (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarity: There is no relevant information lost or gained by including "China" with Hong Kong.  Since all the mentions of "Hong Kong" link back to the Hong Kong article, any reader can quickly and easily determine the actual status of Hong Kong.  However, this article has absolutely nothing to do with Hong Kong or China directly, but rather the tallest buildings in the world.  Whether or not that building is in "Hong Kong" or "Hong Kong, China" makes little difference to the purposes of this article.
 * Consistency: Other pages of Wikipedia frequently use loose definitions of categorizing words for table headers simply because it's too cumbersome to be inclusively specific. For example, in articles about the states of the United States, Washington D.C. frequently shows up under the header of "State", even though that is technically incorrect.  However, having all such tables labeled instead as "State or administrative region" would damage the elegance of the table, and add unnecessary bulk when the meaning is already understood.
 * Tradition: As clearly explained above, countries do not have to be sovereign in order to be considered countries.  In English, the word country is actually very fluid, and can be applied to virtually any region of land or group of people.  However, there are certain regions and groups that have had the label "country" applied to them by tradition, and Hong Kong is one of these.  Even though it was a territory under the British Empire, due to Hong Kong's near-sovereignty, isolated geographic region, and strong cultural identity, is was widely referred to as a country. Both the CIA World Factbook and the UK FCO treat Hong Kong as separate and distinct country from China.  They recognize the SAR status, but both sites place HK and China on an "equal" footing, so to speak.  This is very similar to the way Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and French Guiana are all territories, but at the same time considered countries.  Their distinct geographic region and cultural identity separate them from their parent nation in ways that (for example) a state in the United States wouldn't be.  This is why those regions are considered countries, and it is exactly why there is no problem listing Hong Kong as a country.


 * In essence, putting "China" after "Hong Kong" is the same category of edit as insisting on "state or administrative region" when "Washington DC" is on a list. It serves political correctness in the eyes of some at the expense of clarity, which is why I'm not too keen on that idea either. I guess that means I agree with you. Deryck C. 22:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Nick, "Hong Kong, China" is a recognized form used in international organizations where Hong Kong has separate representation. It isn't something that just got made up for this article. "Hong Kong, China" does recognize HK as a "country" because in this case you also have quite a contingent here saying "China" should be in the country field. Appending ", China" is a gain of relevant information, it adds clarity that Hong Kong is not a separate country, because it isn't - and that's why the "Hong Kong, China" moniker exists in international usage. It's an important distinction in a table that also includes China. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It is true that Hong Kong is just a city of China, so I'm in favor of changing the country listing to China, by changing we would be simply following the same format as all the other countries listed on this article. Such United States and others. 222.186.101.77 (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not 'just a city of China'. Get a Chinese visa, does that entitle you to visit Hong Kong? Or vice-versa? China has an official language, but it's not the official language in Hong Kong. China's legal system and education system don't extend to Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a country on its own, both practically and according to the definition of a country.


 * But most importantly in English when referring to Hong Kong it's almost always referred to on its own. When buying a travel ticket, or arranging to post something, or simply discussing where you've been or lived. I lived in Hong Kong for several years, and that if discussing it is how I would put it. Not "I lived in Hong Kong, China" which is simply odd.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 00:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "When buying a travel ticket" -- ICAO places Hong Kong only as part of China. IATA uses "Hong Kong, China" SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * As I wrote, when buying a travel ticket. I don't buy tickets from the IATA. I just checked on the site where we most often buy tickets, Just the Flight, and it helpfully lists "Hong Kong" twice on its front page but not "China". If you type "Hong Kong" into its search box it's a bit more verbose and uses "Hong Kong, HK (HKG)". So the country is "HK". ITA's Matrix is similar, except it uses "Hong Kong International, Hong Kong (HKG)" for Hong Kong.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 02:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia page. And therefore, we should use Wikipedia as a source of information. This is not a page on Honk Kong, but a page on buildings. It is true that a country is different from a sovereign state. But list of countries redirects to list of sovereign states, and HK is not there. If you want to disagree with that, please discuss on the proper pages, not this one. Whether John Blackburne is right or not about the English language (I have been in the UK for more than a decade and never heard about Hong Kong as a "country" by the way. Including by students from HK), replacing China by Hong Kong here is vandalism. Nicolas Le Novere (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has always used Hong Kong rather than China as the "country" for buildings in Hong Kong. The dispute here is hence replacing Hong Kong by China, not the other way round, hence I'm astonished by your reference to "replacing China by Hong Kong" and "vandalism". Deryck C. 15:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At any rate, "we use Wikipedia as a source of information" is inherently wrong. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the manual of style stipulates that we avoid self-references. Deryck C. 18:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What one redirect does is irrelevant - redirects exist from misspellings, from obscure and archaic versions of names and abbreviations. That A redirects to B does not mean they are synonymous. It certainly does not imply that country = sovereign state, otherwise one would redirect to the other. They don't, they are two different things, and Hong Kong although not a sovereign state is definitely a country. -- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 15:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you read the Economist or the Time magazine Nicolas? Are the reporters and copyeditors vandalising their own magazines? 218.250.159.95 (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalized
The list of the worlds tallest buildings is being vandalized making this article both untrustworthy and incomplete. For a start has Taipei 101 suddenly being demolished or something?

Unusable information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.27.228.178 (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, with the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, some people think it is funny to delete wording from article such as this. You happened to catch the article during the time it was vandalised, but within a minute of you noticing this another editor had restored the deleted material.  If an article seems vandalised, it is easy to see the previous versions by clicking the 'history' tab (it is also easy for anyone to undo the vandalism).  It is through the volunteer efforts of many editors that such vandalism is usually reverted very quickly.  Astronaut (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Russia Tower in construction
http://wikimapia.org/3849246/Russia-Tower-Construction-Site

what does this look to you???--Shokioto22 (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like a satellite photograph of indeterminate age and accompanying text saying construction of Russia Tower has been halted. You need a reliable source telling you that construction has actually restarted and Wikimapia is not a reliable source anyway.  Interfax is a reliable source, but what the interfax article actually says is that the construction permit has been extended for three years, not that construction has actually restarted.
 * So, what can we conclude from this? The developer had a building permit that allowed them to build a 612 m tall skyscraper with 400,000 m2 of floor space and to complete the work by 31 December 2012.  According to Russia Tower, they started construction in 2007, halted work in 2008 and cancelled the project in 2009.  The city government has now extended that building permit to 31 December 2015, but specified it must be for a smaller building of 240,000 m2.  And that is all.  This is probably good news for the companies involved because it will give them time to recoup something from their investment so far.  Astronaut (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

New List
Hey Astronaut, just wondering when you will upload the new list as thinking about making a few changes but dont want to know with this old list, thanks, GuyBGuyb123321 (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been a bit busy in real life and the list has changed a bit. I can get around to this probably later next week.  Astronaut (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool, Thanks for the update Astronaut, hopefully will see the new list next week :-),Guyb123321 (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

New List.2
Sorry for bothering you again Astronaut, just wondering when roughly the new list will be up, Guyb123321 (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 April 2012
Please add the skytower in Auckland New Zealand to the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Tower

116.199.213.66 (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but no - this list is for buildings, not towers. Auckland's Sky Tower is correctly listed in List of tallest towers in the world.  Astronaut (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Pearl River Tower
Shouldn't the Pearl River Tower make the "Height to roof" list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.19 (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Pearl River Tower should be listed (it is already in the other 2 lists). This is the kind of problem you get having three separate lists, where it is inconsistant.  Hopefully it will be fixed soon.  Astronaut (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Empire State building declared as tallest in NYC, but no longer
As of a couple of weeks ago, the new WTC building took the top spot away from the ESB. 84.155.183.125 (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When One World Trade Center has been topped-out, it can be added to this list and any wording about the Empire State Building being the tallest in New York City can then be adjusted to account for this. Astronaut (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Mercury City Tower
its pretty much done

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SkVrIaQy6Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cOsbvXnqfc --Shokioto22 (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And it is easy to get an amazing basket from the other end of the court - YouTube is not a reliable source. Mercury City Tower will be added to this list when it is officially topped out and a reliable source records the fact, not before.  Astronaut (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

change U/C cut off
The U/C section is a mess. The world as of 2012, according to CTBUH, has about 170 +250m buildings and China alone has 89 +250m buildings U/C. So if I add everything the list will be too long. I propose to rise the cutoff to some where between 300m or 350m then if I add everything there will be about 94 or 35 buildings to put on the list respectively. Steve chiu (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have been working on re-doing the lists in this article, but it is slow work.  Progress is not helped by a recent job change which takes much more of my time than previously.  I will eventually get around to it :-)  Astronaut (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have shortened the U/C list to a 300m or 65 floor cut off. The list is shorter now but it has higher quality information. I also updated it with what I know from the top of my head. There are still buildings missing probably... but its a start. I will eventually try to cite all of them.Steve chiu (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Pearl of the Pacific removal
Pearl of the Pacific is proposed and it don't exists. I should remove this content.

See Articles for deletion/Pearl of the Pacific

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee, Eungki C. (talk • contribs) 12:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Better to use a link to the discussion than cut & paste it here. Astronaut (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Makkah Royal Clock Tower Hotel
If it is not finished why do you include it in the list? Please check this 100 tallest list does not include it yet. The list is misleading. 130.206.68.4 (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria for the list includes those building that are topped-out. That includes the Abraj Al Bait.  The same is true of this list.  Astronaut (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Eiffel Tower
Why the Eiffel Tower has been omitted of these lists ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasSpectre (talk • contribs) 12:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the Eiffel Tower is a tower, not a building. Astronaut (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

¿WHAT ABOUT ANCIENT AND 'OLD' BUILDINGS?
I think we have (you have, because the page is locked) to include some important buildings, at least those which have been the tallest buildings in the world (such as Eiffel Tower or the Great Pyramid of Giza which has been during thousand years the tallest building in the world). Considering just XX and XXI century buildings is absurd! --AlexanderFreud (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This list is about the current tallest. Not only that, but the Eiffel Tower is a self supporting observation tower, and the Great Pyramid is a large tomb/memorial; neither would qualify for inclusion in this list anyway.  Take a look at List of tallest buildings and structures in the world.  That has the kind of list you are after.  Astronaut (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The shard
I do not see the shard in the list of the tallest skyscrapers in the world, and it should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.233.161 (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to read the article again. It is right there, correctly listed at number 66 in the list.  Astronaut (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

One World Trade Center
Under the remarks of One World Trade Center in the Under Construction section it says it will become the third tallest in the U.S.A when in fact it will be the tallest in the U.S.A., whoever put that is not counting the spire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed Person (talk • contribs) 01:35, 29 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Please update numberings when updating buildings
Hi, as per this title can we make sure when we update the buildings in the list we also update the numbers preferably at the same time, because just going through the list, all buildings after 122 need to go up 1 because someone didn't update the numbers after deleting the trump tower toronot, the 4 buildings on 149 actually should have been on 148(so they are know on 147 as all buildings after 122 have gone up 1), and all buildings after 243 had to go up by 2 because of another editor not updating the numbers, so if we could all update the numbering as soon as we update the list, that would be great thanks. Guyb123321 (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa picture
This page needs a picture of the tallest building in the world! Immediately. Gabriel arisi (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burj_Khalifa_building.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel arisi (talk • contribs) 03:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I moved your new comment to the end of the page per normal talk page convention. Astronaut (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The subject has come up repeatedly. The problem is that UAE has no Freedom of Panorama, and that restricts which images we can use and where we can use them.  What this means is that images of the completed Burj Khalifa can only be used under a claim of fair use.  Wikipedia's policy (particularly sections 3a & 3b) restricts fair use images to minimal usage and apparently that does not include List of ... articles.  Astronaut (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

ad Lakhta Center to under contraction list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakhta_Center

ad Lakhta Center to under contraction list its 463m tall.

http://gulfnews.com/business/construction/arabtec-to-build-europe-s-tallest-office-tower-1.1083493 http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/industry-insights/property/arabtec-wins-contract-to-build-gazprom-headquarters-in-russia --Shokioto22 (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the CTBUH and both sources provided above, the building is not yet under construction. So "Arabtec ... won a Dh453 million contract ..." and "Arabtec yesterday won a Dh453 million (US$123.3m) contract ... will deliver the early works for the 463 metre high Gazprom Tower in St Petersburg, ..." do not say construction has started.  They only say it is a proposal for which Arabtec has won a contract.  Construction is a fickle business and it could still be years before groundbreaking (the usual measure of construction starting) is announced in a reliable source or it could be abandoned altogether.  Astronaut (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Mercury City Tower now topped out
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/9648603/Moscow-reclaims-Europes-tallest-building-title-from-Londons-Shard.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyb123321 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

still missing buildings
according to CTBUH we are stil missing quite a few buildings in the completed list. http://skyscrapercenter.com/create.php?search=yes&status_COM=on&type_building=on

Steve chiu (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is something I was going to take care of at the beginning to this year. Unfortunately, real life intervened and I have since had to restrict the time I can spend editing Wikipedia .  Feel free to make updates as necessary.  Astronaut (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings Under Construction
Sri-Lanka Colombo Lotus Tower-350 meters.

Krrish Square Tower 1-95 floors

Krrish Square tower 2-91 floors

Krrish Square Tower 3-65 Floors

Krrish Square Tower 4-65 Floors

Altair Building-65 Floors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popthepuff (talk • contribs) 11:38, 22 December 2012
 * Colombo Lotus Tower is only a proposal and is a communications/observation tower so would not qualify for this list anyway. This reliable source only lists that the lotus tower; do you have a reliable source that states Krrish and Altair projects are actually under construction or even that they exist.  Astronaut (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources for all 3 projects were listed on this page : []. I believe that the website may be a little outdated, given that it lists the Diamond Tower which is a formerly U/C project now on hold as a vision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popthepuff (talk • contribs) 07:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The CTBUH is pretty reliable, though they tend to be a little US-centric and update their listing only when they have checked something (ie. they can lag behind unreliable sites like forums and I think they still do their own fact checking before taking a news report at face value). Astronaut (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Russia Tower
Project was cancelled. Should be removed from "on hold" list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popthepuff (talk • contribs) 11:41, 22 December 2012‎
 * You're right. Removed.  Astronaut (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Milad tower not included
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milad_Tower


 * That is because it is a telecommunications/observation tower. It is correctly listed at #6 on List of tallest towers in the world.  Astronaut (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

East Pacific & Grand International now FINISHED
East Pacific Business Center & Grand International Mansion have now finished (they actually finished back in 2012) Guyb123321 (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * They were both listed in the completed buildings, though under different names: East Pacific Business Center appeared as "East Pacific Center 1" and "East Pacific Center 2", while Grand International Mansion appeared under its new name "The Pinnacle". I have since moved Grand International Mansion to The Pinnacle (Guangzhou) (to fit in with other buildings of a similar name, and the The Pinnacle disambiguation page).  And I have updated East Pacific Business Center to include updated details of the whole complex and moved that one to East Pacific Center.  Astronaut (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Gramercy Residences is only 250m tall
Based on this information as well as this video from Century Properties (developer of the building, the Gramercy Residences is only 250m tall and not 302m, hence it is not the tallest building in the Philippines and will move down the list to at least no. 228. Can someone please rectify the list to include such changes? GrayFullbuster (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 February 2013
Hi you don't have to allow me to edit if you don't want, but the second tallest building in the world is currently the Tokyo Skytree in Japan standing at 634 meters, and is a radio/tv/broadcasting tower. Peace out.

Bluemagick808 (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Doesn't meet the second of the two criteria shown at the top of the article. Rivertorch (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Tokyo Sky Tree is the tallest free standing structure in the world, its not the tallest building in the world, and also it doesn't meet the criteria of the tallest building / skyscraper.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is correctly listed at List of tallest towers in the world. Astronaut (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Height of Damac Heights has been reduced !
The Damac Heights, a supertall skyscraper under construction in Dubai Marina, Dubai, has now been replaced by a new shorter building with a height of 335 metres tall, i saw this, when i tried to open the database of Damac Heights on CTBUH, but that was either deleted or moved:here Damac Heights, and the new page has been created by the name of Damach Residenze, here DAMAC Residenze.

But i am unable to find any other reliable source that says the tower's height has been reduced, if any one of you have such source then please share here, as we have to change the rank of tower in this article.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

1WTC antenna
We do not count antennas, yet on 1WTC it's counted. Elk Salmon (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Buildings should be listed to "Architectural height". However, some are listed with the height to the tip of the antenna.  Burj Khalifa was to the antenna (I just corrected that).  1WTC is to the architechural height 541.3 m (it is 4.9 m more to the top of the antenna).  Astronaut (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I also improved the "note to editors" to make it more obvious and to add that the list is by the architectural height. Astronaut (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Burj Khalifa is entirely architectural to its tip. 1WTC has huge metallic installment on the roof that is not architectural at all. Elk Salmon (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Take a look at each building's article: Burj Khalifa, One World Trade Center. Take a look at a reliable listing site such as the CTBUH's Skyscraper center and visit the page for each building there.  They list:
 * Burj Khalifa Height: Architectural 828.0 meter / 2717 feet Height: Occupied 584.5 meter / 1918 feet Height: To Tip 829.8 meter / 2723 feet
 * One World Trade center: Height: Architectural 541.3 meter / 1776 feet Height: Occupied 382.3 meter / 1254 feet Height: To Tip 546.2 meter / 1792 feet
 * Burj Khalifa has a very tall metal spire above the top floor. The spire is topped by a 1.8 m tall antenna.  1WTC recently had a 125 m metal spire installed on the roof.  Since the tip is listed as 4.9 m higher, I expect there is/will be a small antenna on top of the spire.  I have no reason to disbelieve the reliable sources used to create the articles.  The architectural height of 1WTC is not in dispute whether or not you think it is just a "huge metallic installment on the roof".  Astronaut (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Stratosphere
The Stratosphere Las Vegas is missing. --XXLVenom999 (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Stratosphere Las Vegas is a tower and therefore does not qualify for inclusion on this list. It is correctly listed in List of tallest towers in the world.  Astronaut (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, August 2013
In the list, the second tallest building is entered as something in Shanghai with a completion date of 2014. I can provide almost seven witnesses to testify that this year hasnt showed up yet... The biggest and second tallest land structure ever built is the Makkah Royal Hotel Clock Tower cluster. Thus it should be second on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.251.113 (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is usual to place new commentas/questions at the end of the talk page. Luckily, I noticed your question was added and moved it here.  Astronaut (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Presumably, you are asking about Shanghai Tower. That skyscraper was topped out earlier this month.  Even though it is not yet fully complete and won't actually open until 2014, it has reached its maximum height.  In common with some other height listing sites, topped out buildings are eligible for inclusion in this list as stated in the first paragraph of that section, which says: "The list includes the tallest 300 (completed and topped out) buildings in the world."  Shanghai Tower is also flagged with footnote "B" which says "Topped out but not completed."  Astronaut (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

THE HEIGHT(m) DOES NOT SORT PROPERLY
When I clicked to sort by height in metres, it sorted the values alphanumerically!! It starts at 1001, 1002 .... 2073, 2717, 790 .... 995, 997 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byron3 60 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is fixable, but is not a simple task. A workaround would be to sort on the rank column, since the list is already ranked in height order.  Astronaut (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Central America
Marcos: Central America is not considered a continent, by any of the common definitions, rather it is considered a subcontinent, though I note that our article does not actually list the various subcontinents. Is it possible that because Latin Americans are taught that "America" is one continent, the division of "America" into North, Central, and South American seems no odder than the division into only North and South America? Certainly to English speakers, the idea of Central America as a continent seems rather odd.

Regardless, I don't really care, since I personally think that treating "Europe" and "Asia" as two continents is pretty silly, however I would ask that you move it after Australia, as Central America is geographically smaller than Oz even if you include Chiapas, Tabasco, and the Yucatan. —Quintucket (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you guys really learn in the US that someone born in Panama or Honduras is "North-American"? WOW! Here we are definitely not taught that the Americas are 1 continent; rather, we learn that there are 8 continents in this world: Africa, Europe, Asia, South America, North America, Central America, Antarctica and Oceania. We also learn that North America is composed of Mexico, Canada and the US. I guess in the US they just say that there are 3 continents: Afro-Eurasia, America and Australia. MarcosPassos (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, neither the Continent nor Subcontinent artices mention Central America. There is a little discussion of this in Boundaries between continents, but it still doesn't say Central America is a continent or subcontinent.  I have therefore reverted its addition again.  Astronaut (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Omission
There is no mention of the tallest building in Oceania - Sky Tower in Auckland, New Zealand - which, at 328m, is 6m taller than the Gold Coast's Q1 Tower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorhussy (talk • contribs) 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is because of the distinction between buildings and towers. Sky Tower is an observation tower and is there therefore excluded from this list which is only for buildings - ie. structures with a continuous set of occupiable floors.  It is correctly listed at #25 on List of tallest towers in the world.  Astronaut (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Floor area
Why isn't the floor area shown? this is a critical measure of how big a tall building actually is. The list for record floor area buildings is largely populated by flat strutctures or large buildings that are not very tall, so this would be a good place for that information to compare the "largest" skyscrapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C28:194:520:5E26:AFF:FEFE:8624 (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I did intend to add floor area when I completely revamped the lists. Unfortunately work took over my life and I never got around to the revamp.  It would be a useful addition.
 * You might find the List of largest buildings in the world useful. Astronaut (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

One World Trade Center: Spire or Antenna?
Should the communication antenna on the One World Trade Center (OWTC) be considered a spire and therefore an architectural element, or should it be considered a pure antenna? This is a relevant question because antennas are not considered in measuring the height of a building for the purpose of this wiki article.

I am not sure that we should include the antenna/spire in the architectural height of OWTC, judging from these photos: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OneWorldTradeCenter.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:One_WTC_7.5.13.JPG

What do you think? Fire away please. DonitzLiebt (talk)
 * It's not what I think. The CTBUH has judged it to be a spire, so the building gets to keep its 1776 ft height - see this.  Astronaut (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request
Moshe Aviv tower is not located in Tel Aviv, but in Ramat Gan.

93.172.62.208 (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

✅ - thanks for pointing that out

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2014
The CN Tower in Toronto, Ontario is not listed on here at all, it is still very high up there on the list. Although in the Wiki Page for CN Tower it lists as tallest building in Western civilization. This list is inaccurate.

64.56.144.111 (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not good at editing Wikipedia, plus I have a whole bunch of other stuff going on, but the CN Tower needs to be on this list! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.201.39 (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

❌ - if you read the article, it clearly explains it is a list of the tallest buildings, not structures - the criteria is having continuous, occupiable, floors - on which basis, the CN tower is about 5 storeys high. However, you will find the CN tower on List of tallest structures in the world - Arjayay (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

CN Tower
(Moved from the middle of a section further up on a different topic)

CN Tower in toronto is well above 500 M. ?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.144.111 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, this is a list of Buildings, not structures - see answer immediately above. Arjayay (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2014
The Chicago Spire is a skyscraper that is currently on hold in Chicago, IL USA. It's final height will be 2000 feet, or 610 meters.

2601:D:D280:E23:FD77:D84E:B5A3:1DD5 (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

✅ Added to "Skyscrapers on hold" list - although as work was suspended in 2008, I am not sure when we change "on-hold" to "abandoned" - Arjayay (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Undone. Chicago Spire was officially cancelled in 2010.  These three reliable sources, all say cancelled: CTBUH, Emporis, Skyscraperpage.  That is despite the article saying otherwise.  Astronaut (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Dream Dubai Marina
It hasn't been topped out. So 14th should be Trump Tower and so on. Somebody can check this out? --Doblecaña (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2014
It's a list of the world's tallest buildings and the CN Tower isn't even mentioned, yet there are building half its size mentioned on the list? As a proud and fact loving Canadian I would like to see its facts up on this page.

99.235.25.160 (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

❌ - please read the explanations above - Arjayay (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

HONG KONG IS NOT A COUNTRY BUT A CITY OF CHINA
Hong Kong is not a country but a city of China, so under "COUNTRY" you should write CHINA.--79.144.102.242 (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a header to separate your new question from the previous one. Astronaut (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed many times before and will probably be discussed many more times too (see Talk Page Archive 3 for the last time it happened on this page). Occasionally some Chinese nationalist with a point to prove will convert all mention of "Hong Kong" to add "Peoples Republic of China" or the PRC flag.  A short while later a Hong Kong nationalist will change it back and so an edit war will start.  It'll go back and forth a few times, everyone's time will be wasted, and nothing will get decided.  Eventually one side will lose patience and get themselves blocked from editing or will give up entirely.  What is slightly unusual this time is the half-hearted attempt.  If you are going to start this kind of thing, try to do a proper job and don't leave the article inconsistant.  Astronaut (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem here isn't the Chinese nationalists, but the HKG nationalists with a point to prove (see below). --IJBall (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I am from SPAIN, and I have never been in China, but it is OBVIOUS that if you write "TALLEST BUILDINGS BY COUNTRY", then the word used has to be CHINA, not Hong Kong which is just a Chinese city as anybody knows. Whatever people say is not relevant as far as facts are taken into account. Hong Kong is right now a city of CHINA. That is out of discussion.--88.1.244.26 (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC) You can solve the problem easily writing about the tallest buildings in the World just by CITY, not by country. Otherwise it is ridiculous, because then you would have to write NEW YORK....Country: NEW YORK. It is not a question of debate that Hong Kong is part of China as everybody knows it is, and as any serious Encyclopedia says.--88.1.244.26 (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read all the previous discussions (on this page's talk archives, and other pages too). As I said, it has been discussed at great length with no clear consensus.  Astronaut (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and please do not vandalise the article by removing column headings. Astronaut (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You should read an Encyclopedia to know where is Hong Kong...--193.152.161.116 (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course we all know where Hong Kong is - an island just off the coast of China, was part of the British Empire until 1997 and is now a Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China which operates under One country, two systems. Just saying this has been discussed many, many times before and no clear consensus has come out of it for this article or any other article.  Astronaut (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

But even you agree that there is no discussion about the COUNTRY: CHINA. That is out of discussion.--79.146.242.195 (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The appropriate solution is to change to column heading from "Country" to "Country/Region" (or "Country/Area") then, if editors on this page want to leave the HKG flag up. Because most of the posters to this thread are in fact correct - if the column heading is just "Country", then the flag must China's, by definition (i.e. List of sovereign nations). --IJBall (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That is a poor solution. Adding region will invite discussion as what is a "region", and we really don't want to fix this problem with Hong Kong by creating a bigger problem where people add  New York, or  New York City.  I've reverted you change until consensus can be reached.  Astronaut (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Astronaut, understood, but it is worth pointing out that this is how at least one other Wiki page (e.g. List of countries by tax rates) handles this issue - a legend can always be added to the top of the page defining what the column heading means. But I'm strongly of the opinion that either the column heading says "Country" so than China must be listed (by definition, from List of sovereign states), or if editors want HKG listed then some "modifier" must be placed on the column heading (e.g. "Country/Region", or something similar to that). Another possible compromise would be to leave "Country" as the heading, and go with something like " PRC, 🇭🇰 HKG" or " PRC (🇭🇰 HKG)" or whatever will work so that sorting is not "broken". --IJBall (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hong Kong is not a sovereign state but it is a country for international comparisons: whether you're discussing countries of origin of goods, or making travel plans to different countries, or comparing GDP or similar. See country for the definition. As an example Scotland and Wales are considered to be countries but have far less autonomy and independence than Hong Kong.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 18:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * John, the List of sovereign states controls this issue - if you're on that list, you're a "country"; if you're not on that list, you're something else. Any other interpretation would, to my mind, violate WP:Neutral point of view. And, otherwise, yes, places like Wales and Scotland would require their own entries as well. Now, if people want to leave HKG on this list, that's fine. But, if they do, the column heading can't read just "country" - it'll have to read something else. That's the fair compromise. --IJBall (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By equating sovereign states and countries, and by excluding 'something else', you're already pushing for your own POV. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Back to Astronaut: would "Country/Territory" be a preferable column heading solution to you? --IJBall (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I really have no solution to offer. I just know that changing the column header could create a problematic situation; and that whatever you put next to Hong Kong, somebody won't be happy and will eventually come here and change it.  The archive on this talk page and the talk page of many similar articles is testament to the difficulty with this issue.  Most involved editors eventually come to the same feeling as me, that the issue will never be resolved an would rather just try their best to minimise the disruption such edit wars cause.  Astronaut (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * FTR, that is exactly what I am trying to do here. The original posters to this thread are correct - "Country" is a word with a very specific connotation. The best solution to allow for the inclusion of HKG, while still not antagonizing the PRC crew, would seem to be to add some word "qualifier" to "Country". Otherwise, if left as "Country", I'm going to have to come down on the side of excluding HKG, on the grounds of word meaning and WP:Neutral point of view.
 * If no further objections are leveled here, I'd like to change that column heading to "Country/Territory", so that this page can craft a solution similar to the List of countries by tax rates. --IJBall (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But country is appropriate precisely as it's unspecific. The specific term for e.g. a UN member would be sovereign state. Sovereign states are also called countries but they're not the same thing. Country is much broader and less specific so appropriate here. I've already mentioned Scotland and Wales; another country that appears in this list but is not a sovereign state is Taiwan, and there are many more.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 00:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * First, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so what the preamble says on the country page is probably not relevant. Second, as is clear even from the Wikipedia entry on country there is a strong correlation with "sovereign state" (e.g. the whole latter part of that article). (Taiwan is a very special case, completely unique, even in the List of sovereign states... Meanwhile, Scotland and Wales are not included in this table, so not sure they're relevant.) Again, in my view, leaving the column heading as "Country" is unnecessarily antagonistic (and is a very one-sided "resolution" to the issue), and seems to be an attempt to confer on HKG status it doesn't have. Finally, what are you going to say when someone invokes "One country, two systems" here. Again, the appropriate solution is some kind of compromise column heading, a la List of countries by tax rates. --IJBall (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right, WP is not a dictionary, but that is meant primarily to exclude articles that consist only of definitions of words. WP is an encyclopaedia, with articles on topics, not words. But that does not make it less accurate. Parts of country concerns sovereign states but only parts as you note – that's not the only meaning. As for one country, two systems it's a direct translation of the chengyu 一国两制, a slogan devised by the communist leadership, so is both POV and loses a lot in translation and so certainly not a useful guide as to how to use words in English.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 01:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Including HKG under "country" is a clear POV issue as well. Hence the need for a compromise. --IJBall (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2014
The list items are misnumbered. There's four buildings with the rank 91, but they are followed by a #94. Same goes for the 229 ranks, there's three of those followed by a 231.

Underyx (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently there's more: the rank 14 is completely missing, and a 109 follows two 108s. Underyx (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm guessing it is because those buildings are all tied with the same height. Please be more clear with what you think needs fixing. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 22:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Just look at the list, it's obviously wrong. Check ranks 14, 94, 109, 231 against Ranking#Standard_competition_ranking. 2001:4898:80E8:ED31:0:0:0:2 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I... I... what? Huh? Sources? Am I required to find a scientific paper that says the number 14 comes after 13, not 15? Can someone else look at this edit request instead? The problem really shouldn't be difficult to see, and I don't know how this could possibly be explained any better. Underyx (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the request that the buildings be renumbered. Current order is .. 12, 13, 15.. but 14 is missing. Sources: "14 is the natural number following 13 and preceding 15" . The specific request is that building order be renumbereItd so as to include natural numbers, excepting that where there is a tie the appropriate number of spaces in the natural ordering is skipped. Other places where there are numbering issues are at *current* positions 14, 94, 108 and 231. Utunga (talk)


 * The reason #14 is missing, at least, is that the previous entry in the #14 spot was removed without changing the rankings: . I don't know what the correct rankings are supposed to be, but the rankings currently given on the page are inconsistent, which is what Underyx is pointing out. —Bkell (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems to simply be a complaint that the order is 90, 91, 91, 91, 94 and 107, 108, 108, 110 and 229, 229, 231. Those are what are know as ties in height, so they are all the same number and the next numbers get skipped until all of the buildings are accounted for.  If there are missing numbers, then it means that someone inappropriately removed an entry and it is your job as the requester to dig through the edit history and say please restore the building removed in . — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 13:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please check the list? The order is not that. You're saying the order is
 * 90, 91, 91, 91, 94 and 107, 108, 108, 110 and 229, 229, 231.
 * but it actually is
 * 90, 91, 91, 91, 91, 94 and 107, 108, 108, 108, 110 and 229, 229, 229, 231.
 * please tell me you're seeing it now. Also, #14 on the list was removed as it was (and still is) under construction. Therefore, the removal was legitimate. Bkell linked to the diff of this above. Underyx (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, I was just hoping someone else would do this because it's mindnumbing and I kept making errors when I tried. Getting on it. Cannolis (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Sorry, I was working on this before you posted! (Mind-numbing indeed.) Someone may want to double-check my work. Cheers, <b style="font-variant:small-caps;"> Little Mountain  5 </b> 19:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah actually just got an edit conflict. I think it's right, I actually completely missed that 14 was skipped and just spent like 5 minutes trying to figure out where ours differed. Cannolis (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks for the fix, ! Underyx (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It has always been the case with this list that buildings of equal height have equal rank. Therefore numbering like 90, 91, 91, 91, 91, 95 95, 97, 98 is to be expected.  The big problem is that some lazy editors tend to insert a building and either don't bother with any renumbering or only renumber as far as they can be bothered to do it.  You only need a few of those edits and throw in a bit of vandalism, and the numbering quickly gets out of step with the rules.  Looking back at the talk page archives, this has been mentioned several times before - with one discussion leading to me leaving a note to editors about the rules.  Astronaut (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Buildings Underconstruction
There are still three buildings in the under construction list that said they finished last year, does anybody know anything about these three so as to add them to the main list or push back their completion date? Guyb123321 (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2014
111.119.180.122 (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Karachi Port Trust 117floors
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mz7 (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not done Karachi's Port Tower Complex is only a proposal according to CTBUH and Emporis - both reliable sources. Therefore it doesn't get to appear in this list.  Astronaut (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Guangzhou's Canton Tower is not listed.
Canton Tower was the world's highest building from 2009 August to 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.18.25.231 (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Because Canton Tower does not have "continuously occupiable floors", it is not classified as a building and therefore does not qualify for this list, nor was it ever the world's tallest building. It is correctly listed at #2 on the List of tallest towers in the world and correctly described there as the "tallest tower in the world 2009-2011".  Astronaut (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

CTF Guangzhou (530m) is topped out
since 7.10.2014!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please add it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.102.132.229 (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Astronaut (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

roof of Burj Khalifa
It is listed as 828 m in the "Height to roof" section. However, its own article's infobox has "Top floor" with "584.5 m". I thought they should be the same, or possibly height of the floor added to the figure. If it is indeed correct, I suggest "highest floor" list be added to the article. 82.141.73.182 (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not mean that inside the highest floor of Burj Khalifa, the ceiling is over 200 m above the floor; there is a substantial, architecturally important, spire above he top floor. Remember that what is written in Wikipedia articles is not about your or anyone else's opinion, but what is verifiable in reliable sources.  Many of the reliable sources used to write the Burj Khalifa article agree that the highest architectural point is 828 m while the highest (occupiable) floor is at 584.5 m.
 * Note however, height to roof was dropped as an official statistic by the CTBUH in November 2009. Perhaps the list on this article should be renamed, since the "Height to roof" section actually lists the "Highest architectural point".  Astronaut (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I would not say "height to roof" is same as "highest architectural point". Sure, in many buildings, an architectural spire is at the top. However, I don't understand how spire would be considered as roof. If it is considered as roof, in this case it would mean as you suggest, "the ceiling is over 200 m above the floor". Or if there is a source that says it is different in skyscrapers, than in 'normal' houses, in where you see the roof above when in top floor. 85.217.34.203 (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2014
Could you please add the Warisan Merdeka to the U/C Section of the page. It is a minimum of 600M tall, with 188 floors, located in KL. Construction started this year and is due to be completed in 2019

L.A Regent (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

✅ - but Warisan Merdeka is only planned to have 118 floors, not 188, and the information seems slightly vague, so it may be removed or demoted. - Arjayay (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)