Talk:List of tallest buildings in Europe/Archive 1

...
that's totally wrong...

What's totally wrong? Is there any problem about this article? Please point out what you consider incorrect in the article. Joshua Chiew 08:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

All towers above 100 meters ?
I've seen that people have decided to enlarge the list. That's rather a good move however, I'm not sure it's necessary a good idea to enlarge the list to all highrise buildings over 100 meters. Indeed, in Paris alone, there are 63 buildings which are above that height (See: List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region). According to Emporis, there are at least 600 buildings above 100 meters in the whole Europe, and I haven't counted them all.

All this to say that I don't believe it's such a good idea to go below the limit of 140 meters, which is the one of the French wikipedia, obviously being the source of this list. That's why if no one complains, I'll erase from it all buildings below 140 meters which have been added by different users. Metropolitan 16:44, 4 november 2006 (UTC).


 * There are much more than 600 buildings over 100 meters in Europe. Also this list is made in French! Translation is needed for many towers. It is also usual that skyscraper means the 150m+/500ft+ building. I think the list could be cut to this limit. Elk Salmon 17:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for having answered so fast. Actually, after having checked the list again, I realized that it's actually about the 100 tallest buildings. I do believe that 100 buildings is a good figure for a comprehensive list, so I don't believe there's a need to remove more highrise buildings of it. However, you're indeed right, there's still a lot of French in the list and a cleaner translation should be made. Moreover, the list could look a bit better. I believe it wouldn't be that bad for instance to add little flags representing the countries in which they are built. Anyway, I don't have the time to take care about this for now, but I'll try to work on it later. Metropolitan 17:11, 4 november 2006 (UTC).
 * LUCPOL version says it's 100m+. If adding 100m+ then the list will contant hundreds, if not thousands, buildings. In my opinion 150m+ mark will be most relevant for the list. Still it is about skyscrapers. Elk Salmon 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

See: Category:Skyscrapers by height and Category:Skyscrapers between 100 and 149 meters. Skyscrapers > 100 m is OK ;) LUCPOL 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Metro's list
I'm sorry. But this list is totally unaccabtable. It is contain predefined number that will make list upgrading work as equal to hell. By the way. I have been updated some names and added some buildings, which you removed now... Elk Salmon 01:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Too late right now. But i will work on this tommorow. First of all - it is narrow copypast from Emporis. Such things not really welcome here. Names should updated, rank number removed, heights should be change to more exact with points etc. Elk Salmon 02:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Tallest European Skyscrapers 100 m - 140 m (to supplement)

 * Metro, this list is not necessary. The complete table will contain thousands of records, so the page will be over 64kb. Such information about every small highriser is absolutely useless and unnecessary here. Elk Salmon 06:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am different sentence. Data are necessary. LUCPOL 11:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that the table will contain thousand records? Elk Salmon 20:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus - how a usual highriser could be necessary? Elk Salmon 20:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You transplant. Let schedule be becomes developed, it later will decide or to leave in article compartment 150m - x, 125m - x or 100m - x. LUCPOL 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Turkish buildings
I've removed the buildings listed as being in Izmir, Mersin, Konya, and Ankara, since those cities are not in Europe. Some of the entries for Istanbul may also need to be removed, depending on what side of the strait they are on. —Psychonaut 10:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The Turkish buildings currently on the list are all located in Istanbul's European side. Flavius Belisarius 21:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Churches&Cathedrals
What about tall churches, such as Ulm Münster? Some are pretty tall, up to 160 meters.
 * This list is for buildings only. Elk Salmon 19:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Warsaw
I updated and corrected the buildings in Warsaw, all above 140 m. --xRiffRaffx 16:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Rondo 1 B was already in the list. Its height is 159m. Antennas are not being counted. Heights are by architectural tip. Elk Salmon 12:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All other towers was already in the list. Reverted edits. Elk Salmon 12:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Istanbul
Buildings of Istanbul were once on the list (I checked them out and they were all located on the European part of the city) but somehow they were deleted.

Either let's remove anything related to Istanbul in the article (including the wording and picture) or add the city's buildings to the list.

Might I remind you that Russia is also not a member of the EU, while Moscow's buildings are on the list. Flavius Belisarius 13:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am for adding buildings from European part back to the list. --Jklamo 11:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * All buildings in the list are from the European part of Istanbul. The tallest building on the Asian side of Istanbul is the Kozyatağı Business Center (119m, 30 floors) (Emporis: Kozyatağı Business Center) which can't even make it to the 140m+ list. Flavius Belisarius 13:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have much to do with the EU, more with the division between the cultural/historical and the geographical definitions of Europe. --Humanophage (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Revert wars
Please stop revert wars in article and start discussion. User:LUCPOL please explain us, WHY you see User:Keizuko´s edits problematic instead of reverting it without any reason in edit summary. --Jklamo (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Rank
Is it worth adding a new column to the table(s) to assert rank? It's clear to see the top five (or so) tallest buildings, but it's a bit hazy after that. Are there any guidelines over this, or should I go about doing it? Booglamay (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a kind of guideline at WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists, but it is city based. Ranking column is useful for viewer, but in a dynamic list like that it is a kind of editor hell to add new building near the top of the list, because recalculation of lower rankings is needed (there are now 119 rows in the main list). --Jklamo (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

thehighrisepages.de
this is a page emporis refer to with many projects. it's a personal page of some german teen, where lots of data was obviously taken out of head and does not meet on official available data at all. that's include sparrow hills project. Elk Salmon (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC) As of avenue,77 - you linked page to House on Begovaya project... This is a project built by different company and located some 20 kilometers away from avenue, 77. The height is 135,7m (3 levels lower and without tall 5-6m floors at base as on avenue,77) therefore it's not included in list. Elk Salmon (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Still no one comment from User:Jklamo, but only constant reverting of all sources to Emporis? Elk Salmon (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Photograph order
Shouldn't the order of the photographs in this article be in height of tallest buildings order rather than number of tallest buildings order just as the table itself is ordered? NoOneThoughtOfThis1 (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is. And it's corrected. Several cities still missed. Feel free to add their photos. Elk Salmon (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

User:LUCPOL, can you at least tell here what is the purpose of adding photos of cities with no highrises? Elk Salmon (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

FOUR SPANISH, FOUR RUSSIAN, TWO GERMAN TOWERS
Among the 10 tallest buildings in Europe there are 4 Russians, 4 Spanish and 2 Germans....and that is a consequence of the fact that SPAIN and RUSSIA have been two of the most thriving economies in Europe and the World during the last decade. The impressive CTBA (Cuatro Torres Business Area) in Madrid with four building of over 230 meters each is the result of years of urban and economic growth in Spain.

Russian and Spanish skyscrapers are all but one from the late 2000s while the German ones are from the late 90s. Germany is the main economy of Europe so it is logical two of the tallest European skyscrapers are German, but during the last decade Germany´s economy has been lagging even if this year Germany´s GDP will grow more than Spain´s.

The Russian Federation, with its 7% average GDP growth will continue building keeping its economy running at an speed not seen anywhere else in Europe (8,1% in 2007) so it is logical in three years the four main tallest skyscrapers in Europe will be Russian and located in Moscow, first of all the 612 meters Russia Tower (twice more than the tallest European building right now) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.183.222 (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It has to be noted that the Stalinist era buildings are actually quite ancient in comparison to other skyscrapers listed here, so it's not like they sprung out of nowhere. --Humanophage (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Emporis as source, forum as source
Emporis is not private fan page, but widely cited as an authority on building data and partner of Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. Please stop delete emporis as source. Another reliable sources WP:RELIABLE are welcomed, but bear in mind that verifiability of forum posts is limited (see WP:SELFPUB). --Jklamo (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jklamo, can you check at least time to time this talk page. It was explained above what is what and what is where.
 * 1. Emporis is a private site with closed information. SkyscraperCity is linked because sources are linked through the pages in topics.
 * 2. Emporis has no active editors for Moscow since over 3 years.
 * 3. On Emporis, Sparrow Hills 1 and 3 are linked to the german fan page, what is explained above. Sparrow Hills 2 is linked to official elevation drawing. But on the german fan page Sparrow Hills 2 has different from elevation drawing figure. SH 2 Emporis (official elevation drawing) != German fan page figure. It's enough to prove that german fan site is unreliable.
 * 4. The information about City of Capitals on Emporis belongs to the the previous project that was supposed to be built on the site. The new project was lately designed and built. The final height is not officially announced yet. SSC links to work-in-progress information from city-towers.ru that was published by the company representatives.
 * 5. SkyscraperCity is official forum for Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, it's also listed among CTBUH Audit of Tall Building Websites.
 * 6. As far as I know Emporis is not a partner of CTBUH anymore?
 * 7. All other links you have deleted were listed to official sites (Don Stroy and Eurasia Tower). Elk Salmon (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Title of article, and images
This is not a list of the tallest buildings, but only the tallest skyscrapers. The Eiffel Tower is taller than all of these, but is not on the list, yet there is a photo of it. I propose either expanding this list to include all structures, or moving it to List of tallest skyscrapers in Europe and removing images of buildings which are not skyscrapers. Richard75 (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Tour Generali.jpg
The image File:Tour Generali.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --23:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Russian Skyscrapers
Can someone please correct the IBC Moscow skyscrapers according to this table please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Moscow This has the correct completed statistics for the City of Capitals towers. 94.194.151.47 (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't. List of tallest buildings in Moscow will be updated as height is aanounced officially. Listed height refers to the top occupied floor. It is not the structure heught. Current WIP height are 299,9 and 255,3. However they are not final. Elk Salmon (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay. Haven't read teh SSC thread in a while. However, there are photos of the roofs of the buildings. Therefore, thought it was topped out and therefore should be in the table.94.194.151.47 (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I see City of Capitals: Moscow is missing from the pinnacle list. 131.111.184.95 (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Skytower in Wroclaw
Its size has been decreased significantly, so there is a misrepresentation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.181.98.154 (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Stockholm
I can't see why there is a picture of Stockholm since Stockholm has no buildings that qualify for the list. It would be more relevant if someone posted a picture of Turning Torso in Malmö. Vickan111 (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The pictures of skyscrapers shorter than 140 m in the article
The article lists only buildings above 140 m but many of the pictures relate to the cities, which don't have such towers (the towers in Naples are not higher than 130 m, higest tower in Prague is about 108 m etc). Are such pictures welcomed in the article? If so, i may share the pictures of Saint-Peretsburg (Russia) hichest towers - Atlantic City (108 m, office) or Dominanta (four residential towers about 100 m).--Anoymous IP, 14 January 2011
 * Cities reduces the amount of pictures and makes it neater so they have been chosen. Also, I don't see a picture of Prague. The Hague is the international criminal court in the Netherlands (I am guessing that may have been the source of confusion since they sound similar).--Jorfer (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already cleaned-up pictures. The Hague has building in the list (Hoftoren) --Jklamo (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Saint-Petersburg
The project Okhta-Center (396 m) was cancelled in December 2010. Probably another project shall be built in another place instead, but there is no certain information. The city government has also halted the construction of the Lider Tower mentioned in the list in the article. Seemengly the tower when completed shall not exceed 100 meters. However, even the initial project suggested the height of 133 m only - 140 meters was the allowed height in the place, which is now amended (city government is concerned about the visibility of the tower from the historcial center).--Anoymous IP, 14 January 2011
 * Feel free to edit article. --Jklamo (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Lisbon, Portugal
What is the significance or reason for this picture? There are no skyscrapers on it and Portugal is not even anywhere on this list. --Hatteras (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Already cleaned-up. --Jklamo (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Turkey?
Istambul surly isn't in Europe. Or is the article taking the Bosphorus as the geographic end of the continent, placing Istambul in Europe?
 * I don't think there has ever been any dispute that Istanbul is geographically in Europe. The contentious point is whether Turkey can ever be considered a European country, when it is mainly in Asia, and has an Asian culture. Luwilt (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Projects under construction list needs a thorough review
The list of projects under construction almost certainly contains numerous buildings which will not be completed by the listed date, if at all. Is anyone in a position to update it? Luwilt (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The same applies to the list of proposed buildings. Luwilt (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Cathedrals
Should a list about the tallest buildings not also include cathedrals? It certainly does not change the top 10, but the Cologne cathedral for instance would crack the list at 157.4m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.204.124 (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Industrial buildings/Power stations
The list should be completed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.139.98.15 (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Images
Why are there a list of unrelated images of various European business districts? They rarely show any of the buildings in this list and they seem irrelevant to this article. Surely if you are going to add images to a "list of tallest" articles, then at least the images should show the buildings in the list. Astronaut (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo's should be by article description not by country
Why on earth would you list the building by country, surely you'd list them the actual article description? Twobells (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Shard London
The Shard London is taller than these Russian Buildings currently topping the list (Russia is NOT even in Europe) and for some reason the previous edit that placed it top has been removed??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aveck19 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Shard hasn't been finished yet. Russia IS in Europe.  Ravendrop 07:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not finished and it's never overpassed Mercury City Tower, which is currently tallest, but not yet finished as well. Elk Salmon (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * whats the point in even debating it even if shard would be finished it would be just for some months be the highest building in europe until it gets replaced by mercury tower and later by federation tower 360 meters and even more later if it really comes true by the russia tower with 600 meters (the project is actually reimposed from what i heard). This many skycraper make moscow the only european city which can compete with other cities in america and asia when it comes to skycrapers. Moscow is the true European capital.--Shokioto22 (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Since When Is Russia In Europe?
And I don't mean the EU, I mean in Europe, Russia is in Eurasia.Twobells (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

- yeah sure 40% of european land and 110 million people is just not enough to be counted as europe?? Hey why you even care i thought you dont want to be european and are something like an american state on european soil??? Now you care about europe?? Deal with it brit your time is over, all what you can deliver for the olympic games is a triangle barley able to beat commercebank skyscraper.--Shokioto22 (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Normally Europe is considered to extend until the Ural Mountains. As all the major cities and most of the population are to the west of the Urals, Russia is mostly considered to be in Europe. Anyway these Russian buildings(Mercury City Tower, Federation Tower, etc) are in Moscow which is effectively in Europe, though not in the EU as you all know. So yes, the Shard is the tallest occupied building in the EU, and the tallest(as of July 2012) finished occupied building in Europe. Congratulations! ArticunoWebon (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, part of Russia is in Europe! Hence, the page European Russia :) I do think that Shokioto22's answer to you was rather rude and bordering on sounding prejudiced. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the Shard
I think this article should include a standalone image of the tallest building. In the current no 1's case, The Shard, there isn't a single image of it on this article, since it doesn't form part of either the City or Canary Wharf clusters. This seems a little absurd. When the time comes in a few months for the Muscovite building to be put at no 1., then the artcle should have that as its top picture then. Any thoughts? Regards, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 213.191.245.10's revision suits me.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What counts as the number of floors?
Hello everyone, just a point of clarification I think needs to be made (if not already done so) what are we counting as the correct figure for number of floors?

I only ask because the 'floor count' has been recently changed for The Shard by User:Paravane to the figure given on the tower's Wikipedia article as being the 'number of habitable floors' (which is given as 72) rather than the 'total number of floors including plant floors' (which is 95).

I wonder is their a policy for only including habitable floors or is this something that has been overlooked?

{By the way Paravane didn't change the floor count from 95 but from another number which was presumably incorrect}

Thanks! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The change I made a little earlier was from 95 to 87, in the timeline section. 72 is usually cited as the number of usable floors, 87 the number including plant floors.  At level 95 you would be perched on the topmost piece of steel at the tip of the spire - I do not think there is any sound argument for that being the 'correct' figure!  One possible solution would be to give one figure - say 72 - with a footnote to the other.  My view is that 72 is the more significant figure, but it is likely that those who want to attribute the Shard with the highest possible figure will be continually changing it to 87. Paravane (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back so quickly. I am more concerned with the article in general and whether or not there are potentially other skyscrapers which have a disputable figure based on number of 'inhabitable' or 'plant' or whatever else floors. The point I was trying to make, but obviously didn't articulate very well, is do we know that all the towers' floor counts on this article use the same 'inhabitable' criterion, because if they don't, this list could be inaccurate. Cheers, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Article layout
There has to be some way to make this look better. In order to reach the main content of the article - the list - one has to scroll through the near endless column of various cityscape photos to the right. Not only is it a tad annoying, it looks awful! Can't these photos be put in a gallery at the bottom of the page instead? Or perhaps be omitted altogether? What are your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.216.65 (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

definition of building?
what exactly is a building

plenty of "structures" are higher than those listed here, including [Emley Moor transmitting station], built from concrete and with a room at the top - surely a building, no?

if there's no consensus about what a building is, maybe this article can be renamed "list of tallest skyscrapers in europe" or such

5.69.33.7 (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Russia?
What is this a joke? Not only is Russia in Eurasia it's capital is in Asia, also, someone has been adding entries of buildings not even complete.Twobells (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The capital of the Russian Federation is Moscow and Moscow is in Europe, as was the capital of the Soviet Union (Moscow) and the capital of the Russian Empire (St. Petersburg, also known as Petrograd and Leningrad).
 * The eastern border of the European continent is drawn across the Ural mountain range and Moscow is undoubtedly situated west of said mountains, hence it is in Europe. This has been geographical convention since time immemorial, as can be referenced and confirmed in relevant WP entries (such as the ones above), or why not simply head over to European Russia for the sake of simplicity.
 * Eurasia is an extended continent that consists of both Europe and Asia and by definition Moscow is in Eurasia, but so is Paris and London (again, as Europe comprises the western part of Eurasia, from the Atlantic coast to the Urals).
 * And the primary list does allow "incomplete" structures if they qualify as being topped out (i.e. the structure has reached its final projected height), which is clearly stated in the opening paragraph.


 * More stringent criteria apply to the list further down (fully in operation, not counting certain structural elements such as spires et cetera), if unhappy with the primary list you may want to reference that instead but do bear in mind that all lists follow certain agreed-upon criteria, albeit different ones in different lists.

Sourcing and detail problems
I'm concerned that this article suffers from twin problems; excessively long lists which extend to much less notable buildings, and poor sourcing. The length makes it more likely that lists will be incomplete and, to the extent that anybody actually tries to maintain such a long lists, distracts effort away from the more notable entries near the top. Unfortunately, my attempt to remove swathes of unsourced, unmaintainable, and minimally-notable content was reverted. This edit fails WP:BURDEN (amongst other problems). bobrayner (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edit has been reverted because you removal of a large part (half) of the article without consensus. Also most of the data has sources in a separate articles, also this data is verifiable and also you can use the appropriate templates. Subtropical-man (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are able to provide sources for all the stuff you have added to the article, then feel free; then we're just left with the longer-term problem of maintainability and trivia. Consensus is not needed to remove content which fails wikipedia policies; we don't have to sit around and wait for a quorum to decide whether or not this article should comply with WP:V. If you find it tiresome to provide inline sources for the long lists of stuff that you've added to the article, that just underlines another reason for tightening up the list a bit.
 * On a separate point, the historical section strangely makes no mention of Europe's rich architectural history of (tall) church and cathedral buildings, which is a shame, as there are plenty of good sources available for that kind of content... bobrayner (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * First: part of data has sources therefore you can not remove the half of the article without consensus. Also, idea of trimming of article for example to 200 meters, must have a consensus. Indeed, in the article, there are data without sources, however - not all. Second: almost data in this article is verifiable and also most data has sources in a separate articles (just click the internal link inside Wikipedia - this is acceptable to the Wikipedia:Sources). That's a big difference. Without consensus, you can delete single data that do not have sources and what likely to be hoax. Third: you think, this article is too long? My proposition: (after consensus of course) remove sections: Tallest proposed European skyscrapers, Tallest European skyscrapers by pinnacle height and Industrial buildings. This is my proposition. Subtropical-man (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with removal of proposed skyscrapers and tallest industrial buildings. I disagree with removal of pinnacle height section. I also think that to shorten article we can raise the minimum height from 140 to 150 m.--Jklamo (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good start too, but my attempt to trim the list was immediately reverted by Subtropical-man, complaining about "consensus". Alas, "consensus" isn't a synonym for "Whatever Subtropical-man wants". And there's still no sources, of course. Subtropical-man, where did you get a consensus to add huge amounts of unsourced listcruft? bobrayner (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You removed twenty-six sources (not to mention links to articles, where also will be the sources). Only part skyscrapers not have sources. You can not delete a whole because only part not have sources. Also part of skyscrapers between 150m and 200m not have sources, so, you delete the entire article? This is a rhetorical question. PS. There are templates for the mark of articles and data without sources: Template:Citation needed. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ...but you reinserted lots of unsourced listcruft. Again. Is there some reason you feel you may be exempt from rules such as WP:V? bobrayner (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and again, Subtropical-man adds lots of unsourced listcruft whilst claiming that it's all sourced. There are two problems here; the pointless listcruft and the inability to comply with WP:V. Please stop. bobrayner (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I removed skyscrapers without sources or separate articles. I left skyscrapers that have a sources or separate articles with sources. You removed skyscrapers with sources because you push own version without consensus and talking about lack of sources. Also, you enter data without articles and sources, for example: Sinpas Bomonti and Park Arkon Residence 1 and you left skyscrapers between 300 and 150 meters without sources which proves that you just pushing own new version. Clear mistification. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Broken table sorting?
The table doesn't seem to sort correctly when the ordering parameter is changed - the last entry, "Many smaller buildings", seems to be the issue, but I don't know enough about the format to be sure. Beige.librarian (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Shard Height
The height of The Shard should be 306m. The 310m is a measurement above sea level where the 306m is the height above ground level the building sits on as shown on the Council on Tall Building's Skyscraper Center which receives data directly from the people involved in the building and uses building section drawings to verify height information. Aausterm (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The height of the Shard has long been established as 309.6m AGL, not AOD. That a single site, even CTBUH, shows a different height, does not provide sufficient grounds for change if it contradicts every other source.  The original planning application, 01/AP/0476, refers to a 306m 66 storey building, which could be the source of the CTBUH figure.  It is not clear where the figure of 309.6m comes from, but as it has become all but universally accepted, it should not be changed without conclusive evidence that it is incorrect. The accuracy of the CTBUH site can be judged by the fact that it ranks the Shard as the tallest building in Europe. Paravane (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

link
UBS Tower is redirect to Chicago's One North Wacker.--SojerPL (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

One St George's Wharf Tower
Whoever has created this page has not updated it properly. 1 st grgs wrf is tppd out but it isn't on it Doha975 (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of tallest buildings - ommission
Torre Littoria, 109m build in 1933 in Turin, Italy and 94.227.49.106 (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

VERYAP MERIDIAN IS NOT IN EUROPE
Veryap Meridian is located in the Asian side of Istambul, so it cannot be in the List.--79.144.102.242 (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Added a header to to separate your new question from the previous one. Astronaut (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

New change by new user and IP's
8 April 2014, new user:Mafintieyu made very controversial change, I reverted it. Later also new user:Afmatpesr reverted it, later again also IP 41.108... restored this controversial change. I reverted it and explained exactly why edition has been reverted: "controversial change - Amsterdam is not major financial centres of Europe, why removed Warsaw and Istanbul? This two cities has very many skyscrapers". Mafintieyu again restore this controversial change. First, I ask: Waiting for your thorough explanation. PS. I am considering the option to report you to the administrator because 're using sockpuppets to reverts. Subtropical -man  talk   (en-2)   13:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Amsterdam is not major financial centres of Europe, why you make lies?
 * why removed Warsaw and Istanbul? This two cities has very many skyscrapers.

been reverted by other user IP/new user is not Sock puppetry however Amsterdam is A major financial centres of Europe and why you make lies? Warsaw is not major financial centres of Europe, why you make lies?--Mafintieyu (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * and what This two cities has very many skyscrapers why you make lies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mafintieyu (talk • contribs) 15:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Please source for your nonsense "Amsterdam A major financial centres of Europe" and is assigned to the same category as Frankfurt, London, Moscow or Paris. Your new change is original research. You break the rule of Wikipedia:No original research.
 * Warsaw was entered in the second sentence, not about financial centres of Europe but about skyscrapers . Warsaw has ~20 skyscrapers above 100 metres, above 40 skyscrapers above 70 metres (including 22 skyscrapers built after 2000). The entry of Warsaw is fully correct to sentence of " In recent years, however, skyscraper construction has spread to many other cities, including Barcelona, Brussels (...) Warsaw and others." Istanbul is better, 38 Istanbul skyscrapers has above 150 metres. Please stop trolling.
 * You are shameless, you (Mafintieyu) existed on Wikipedia from yesterday (Created on 8 April 2014 at 14:29), you have made few editions including edit-war, you broke a few rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (you favor Amsterdam), Wikipedia:Verifiability (do not give sources to own changes) and Wikipedia:No personal attacks (your descriptions of changes). It seems that your account was created for disruptive edits. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   15:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * you (Mafintieyu) existed on Wikipedia from 2008 but account Created on 8 April--Mafintieyu (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * and why don't you source for your trivial nonsense claimed!! maybe ok for Warsaw in the second sentence btW Istanbul is not in Europe!!--Mafintieyu (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 2/3 of Istanbul lies in Europe, commercial (skycrapers) and historical center lies in Europe, east suburbs lies in Asia. Istanbul is mainly European city. Also see read article. Example source: WCTR Society; Unʼyu Seisaku Kenkyū Kikō (2004). Urban Transport and the Environment: An International Perspective. Amsterdam: Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-08-044512-0 page 281. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   15:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * So,
 * Warsaw and Istanbul - explained the matter
 * Amsterdam - explained the matter, sentence of "Amsterdam A major financial centres of Europe" break the rule of No original research (you say so because you think), Wikipedia:Verifiability (no sources) and Neutral point of view (you favor Amsterdam).
 * Also you break the rule of CYCLE (new edit, revert by other user = discuss cycle before new edit or edit-war).
 * You want to make a new edition, other user questioned its validity (reason: incorrect data, breaking the rules of Wikipedia and break Status quo. You still have an argument to proving think your editing is good? So far - the lack of any arguments. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   15:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Warsaw is in the second sentence - explained the matter--Mafintieyu (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * you lack of any sources sentence of "Istanbul major financial centres of Europe" break the rule of Wikipedia:Verifiability (no sources) and Neutral point of view (you favor Istanbul )  (no sources) for your trivial nonsense claimed!! Istanbul!!!!!!!! --Mafintieyu (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Istanbul is mainly muslim Asia city — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mafintieyu (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Istanbul lies in Europe (greater part) and Asia (smaller part), there are many sources for this, one I gave above. Secondly: religion does not matter; Kosovo, Albania etc are muslim countries, lie entirely in Europe, see also Islam in Europe. You have no right removed of Istanbul from the article without consensus, especially if there is an objections from another user. You introduce controversial amendments without sources and based on your personal feelings, create edit-war, break the status quo. The end. You do not have any arguments and sources. The discussion came to an end. Your change has been considered erroneous and will be revoked. Goodbye.  Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   18:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, someone had already retreated your controversial change yesterday. Ok. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   18:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding a picture /remove all pictures except for moscow

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of new proposed below. Please do not modify it. 

The result was detained - the use few sock-puppets by Mtrerfowp in poll, user:Mtrerfowp and few sock-puppets has been blocked indefinitely.

I propose to add this picture to the lead. Yes, we have all tall European buildings listed in alphabetical order, but the article is called List of tallest, not just tall buildings in Europe. This picture has 4 out of 5 tallest buildings in it, including The tallest, so does it not fit the lead?FeelSunny (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support everyone can see european skycrapers and metropoles are joke except for moscow, get over it westerners --Crossswords (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ Thanks for pointing that out--Doraslam4809 (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Previously was better. Also, suspicion about the use of sock puppets. User:Doraslam4809, your account exist on Wikipedia one day (Created on 24 April 2014 at 15:14) and you decide (for itself) to remove all pictures (except Moscow)? It is not acceptable! Also, Russian user gave this proposal (remove all pictures except Moscow - capital of Russia), Russian support it, it is very creative. This is not kindergarten. No, without favoring one city. The current use of graphics (many cities in Europe) functioned for years. Subtropical -man  talk   (en-2)   16:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support As evident above--Mtrerfowp (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

✅ clearly no consensus version--Papssews23 (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * next new users, please stop using sock-puppets! If you continue to using sock-puppets, you will be blocked (your IP and all your accounts) from editing Wikipedia.  Subtropical -man   talk  <abbr class="abbr" title="intermediate level of English" > (en-2)   20:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

✅ stop please stop rm consensus version If you continue rm consensus version you will be blocked--Mtrerfowp (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

. This is not consensus, this is consensus between one user (you and your sock puppets). If you still waged edit-war, I will inform administrators-checkusers (see Wikipedia:Checkuser). Your IP and your all sockpuppets will be blocked, you will not be able to create a new account and in any way to edit Wikipedia. If you waged edit-war and votes with the sock-puppets, you have to be blocked at 100% because this is one of the biggest offences in Wikipedia. If you think that using puppets to vote without consequences is you're wrong. Do not have any chance, I will fight with sock-puppets to the end. Subtropical -man <span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:left;"> talk  <abbr class="abbr" title="intermediate level of English" > (en-2)   08:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

✅ :stop please stop rm consensus version--Mtrerfowp (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If you revert again, I will inform administrators. And again: please stop use sock-puppets, you and sockpuppets no have the dual voice. Besides, please wait for vote by other users, ie. from outside Russia. Wikipedia is multinational project, there can be no such thing: two Russians and three sock-puppets by these Russians = five votes for very large picture of Russian Moscow in intro of article. You're dreaming. Subtropical -man  <span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:left;"> talk  <abbr class="abbr" title="intermediate level of English" > (en-2)   20:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Mtrerfowp (talk) not from Russia from outside Russia Crossswords (talk) from Russia--Crossswords (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course ;) Subtropical -man  <span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:left;"> talk  <abbr class="abbr" title="intermediate level of English" > (en-2)   07:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove any very large picture of Russian Moscow in intro of article on Wikipedia because of your personal political beliefs.--Mtrerfowp (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not political beliefs. Again: please stop use sock-puppets, you and sockpuppets no have the dual voice. Besides, please wait for vote by other users, ie. from outside Russia. Wikipedia is multinational project. Subtropical -man  <span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:left;"> talk  <abbr class="abbr" title="intermediate level of English" > (en-2)   07:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

according to three rules of Wikipedia:
 * Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a democracy! Quotation: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus— not voting ". No matter how much users (and sock-puppets) give voice, to new controversial changes - you must have to convince other users (only arguments).
 * Also according to CYCLE ( new change -> if exist revert/oppose = only discussion, no reverts, in any case, you can not push a new version by means of reverts (also see four rule: Wikipedia:Edit warring).
 * Also do not forget about STATUSQUO, quotation: " If you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up".

Your new changes are bad because (five points): We wait for your arguments for your changes, you must prove that your change is good and why (please explain exactly five above points), otherwise you will not be able to enter his controversial changes to the article. Subtropical -man <span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:left;"> talk  <abbr class="abbr" title="intermediate level of English" > (en-2)   07:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) favoring Moscow (very big picture of Moscow in the top)
 * 2) remove all other pictures of other cities from article
 * 3) presenting Amsterdam as main finance center of Europe (totally nonsense)
 * 4) remove Istanbul, Milan, Naples, Valencia (that existed in a sentence in article "In recent years, however, skyscraper construction has spread to many other cities, including.... ". This is confirmed, in this cities in recent years built many skyscrapers)
 * 5) remove some skyscrapers from the list
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Socks
I sense a lot of sock puppet PV pushing on this page. One of who seems like Slimmilky51. The user has less than 15 edits, all to this page or undoing subtropical man's edits. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

--Slimmilky51 (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)nOt sock puppet --Slimmilky51 (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Really? Then why are all your edits to this article and it's talk page only and you popped up after one sock disappeared? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Clear sockpuppetry going on here.....  ƬheStrike  Σagle  sorties  15:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, User:Slimmilky51 is next sockpuppet, administrators confirmed/detected many sockpuppets by this person (for example: User:Mafintieyu, User:Afmatpesr, User:Mtrerfowp...) - blocked indefinitely. Currently, the investigation continues because it is possible that sock-puppets by this person are over 100 (see and see)! And also, every day this person creating new accounts, possible that it will require the intervention of the Internet Service Provider of this person (cut off internet). Subtropical -man  <span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:left;"> talk  <abbr class="abbr" title="intermediate level of English" > (en-2)   16:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Adding a picture to the lead - let's really discuss it this time
Firstly, a few words why this section was created. In February I | proposed to add this picture to the right to the lead. This picture has 4 out of 5 tallest buildings in Europe in it, including the tallest. The discussion did not happen, for reasons you can see | above - seems like only two users took part, with two different opinions. So, thinking that five months is enough time to give any objections to my poposal, I added the picture. However my | edit has been swiftly | reverted with the reasoning "was discussion in past. Start new discussion". So, starting a new discussion, and hope this toime it works. So, I propose to add the image to the lead for the fololowing reasons: we have all tall European buildings listed in alphabetical order, but the article is called List of tallest, not just tall buildings in Europe. This picture has 4 out of 5 tallest buildings in it, including The tallest, and I strongly feel this fits in the lead. P.S. I absolutely do not propose to delete any other images - somehow the first discussion was sort of hijacked and people started discussing this, instead of adding a picture. FeelSunny (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - posting here to make sure my voice is clear and counted.FeelSunny (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I support it too, but I am just an unregistered user so I guess it won't count. However, I'd like to add that there is a more up-to-date photo available on Wikimedia here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MIBC_12th_June_2014.jpg

Projects under construction
Eh, so what do we mean with "under construction" here? Because none of the Swedish skyscrapers have broken ground yet. (The Danish one is also cancelled, I think.) They have in fact not even been formally approved yet, making me think the list may be full of errors. If we truly mean "under construction" as in "approved and broken ground" then we should say that. This sentence:

"This lists buildings that are under construction in Europe and are planned to rise at least 140 metres (459 ft)."

-- should read something like this:

"This lists buildings in Europe that have been approved, are currently under construction and will rise at least 140 metres (459 ft)."

It might also be a good idea to add an additional column "groundbreaking date"? Or maybe we should change the headline to "planned skyscrapers", and be done with it? -- Gavleson (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of tallest bridges in the world which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Historical skyscrapers list is getting absurd
I've noticed that the historical skyscrapers list is getting changed such that recognized record-holding skyscrapers (like the Boerentoren and Witte Huis) are being supplanted by much shorter buildings that also have spires attached, like the Midland Grand Hotel. Doubling this absurdity is that few would have even recognized the Midland Grand Hotel as the tallest building in London at the time, as its tower is substantially shorter than Big Ben, and there are countless spires, city halls and church towers around Europe that are immensely taller than these.

I propose that we rank this list instead by height of the tallest normal usable floor, at least for the early ones, to bring it back in line with some semblance of what people expect.  Oreo Priest  talk 06:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not a list with historical skyscrapers. The timeline goes way back, to an era when skyscrapers where not common. It is a timeline of the tallest buildings (churches and cathedrals excluded). So, that's perfect, I would say, and in line with literature on the subject. To change it, when some of your faverite buildings are falling out, seems questionable at the very least to me. To frame the changes with the word absurd, well.. that's just unsubstantiated. 82.174.116.230 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure it is. In the very document you linked, it points out that Vienna City Hall, at 105m, is taller than either of the two British ones you put on the list. It makes sense to limit the list to those things recognizable as skyscrapers, rather than just buildings with tall spires. (Otherwise, why the fixation on non-church buildings?)  Oreo Priest  talk 21:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly.
 * So, until other sources are provided the hotel claim amounts to wp:original research —Loginnigol (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on List of tallest buildings in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081226123902/http://www.donstroy.com:80/triumph/?page=1 to http://www.donstroy.com/triumph/?page=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090324045039/http://www.donstroy.com:80/mf/?page=1 to http://www.donstroy.com/mf/?page=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080916104543/http://www.donstroy.com:80/izm/?page=1 to http://www.donstroy.com/izm/?page=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 13:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of tallest buildings in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081227051511/http://www.donstroy.com:80/sokolniki/?page=1&lang=en to http://www.donstroy.com/sokolniki/?page=1&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 15:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Errors in British Buildings?
Just briefly noticed a few errors in the British contingent in the list. West Tower in liverpool was in twice, it is 140m so left that one. Jaguar Tower removed in Birmingham as it doesn't exist?? Neither does the Bluehall building in Southampton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.158.126 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Izmir Hilton
Plese kindly add Izmir Hilton to the highest list as it is 142 meters tall Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilton_Izmir Nitrium — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.14.137.150 (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ankara in Europe???
What kind of Europe are we talking about? From a geographical point of view, Europe ends on the Bosphorus, from a political point of view it ends on the Bulgarian-Turkish border, while from a cultural point of view Roman-style Europe ends on the Carpathians and Constantinople-style culture is no longer mainstream east of the Bosphorus. So if we put one Asian city on the List of tallest buildings in Europe, why not put one more hundred of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.123.201 (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Turkey is a candidate European Union country, with lots of European associations.. (UEFA, Customs Union, EBU, European Council, etc etc). I am not talking about geography, where there is a piece of land in "Europe" continent. Anyway, get used to the idea that Turkey is an European Contry. If not, you should exclude Cyprus, Armenia, Georgica, etc etc. Anyway, if a country is accepted as a European Union candidate country, that it is European with all of its borders.. Nitrium


 * It's using the broadest European terms. It includes the entirety of a country if it is partially in Europe (e.g. the whole of Russia, Turkey, Georgia, Spain, Azerbaijan and France). It also includes countries which are geographically entirely in Asia but then culturally and historically associated with Europe (Cyprus and Armenia). Does this answer your question? BenBezuidenhout (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi I noticed that the list begins with "This [list] includes spires and architectural details but does not include antenna masts." Can someone please elaborate what this means and why there's then a separate list later on for "pinnacle height". Judging from the initial comment they seem to be the same thing and do not understand why the first list includes both antennas just like the second? BenBezuidenhout (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Ankara in Europe?? (again)
I've noticed an editing war about listing Ankara and I just wanted to (again) clear up that by extension Ankara can be considered part of Europe. Whether this article uses the strict (Bosphorus/Ural) definition or enlarged (+Turkey, +Siberia) definition I'm not bothered by but as long as the article is consistent. Don't edit the article as some form of rant about Turkey not being in Europe but then leave the towers in Georgia/Azerbaijan/Asian Russian). Be consistent, not disruptive BenBezuidenhout (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It is painfully obvious that Ankara is not on the European continent. That's what caught my eye, and that's what I corrected. If you want to change the article so it remains consistent, you are more than welcome to edit out Georgia or Azerbaijan (although I'm not sure about Ekaterinburg, since it's in the Urals). My edit is not motivated by any opinion on Turkey whatsoever. Danvolodar (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not "painfully obvious" and I'm not sure why you're so set on removing it but then leaving the rest. If you're so dead set and commited to removing Ankara then please be my guest and remove any other "painfully obvious" non-European cities. Don't ruin the article's consistency because you don't like the idea that a Turkish city has skyscrapers. As mentioned (plenty of times) the nation of Turkey is trans-continental and it's capital city is Ankara. The borders of Europe are not only subject to the individual but also vary from person to person. Ankara is in the enlarged definition of Europe (the same way Cypriot, Azerbaijani and Georgian towers are on the list). As mentioned I have no issue with the article adhering to stricter definitions of "Europe" but for heaven's sake be consistent and don't harm the quality of the article. BenBezuidenhout (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Fine, make it "it's painfully obvious to anyone who has in his life looked on a map with the borders of continents". The continent of Europe ends at Bosporus, Asia Minor is on the continent of Asia, period. That doesn't vary from person to person, and the borders of Turkey make Ankara a European city no more than borders of France make Cayenne a European city, the borders of Russia do Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, or the borders of Britain before 1 July 1997 did Hong Kong. Your patriotic vitriol is both misplaced and ridiculous; and the only city Turkey has that qualifies for the list of tallest buildings in Europe is Istanbul, on account of being located on the continent of Europe. As for the rest of cities that you think do not belong, you are free to go and remove them, as I have already pointed out. I struggle to recall anything that'd allow editors dictate which editions other editors should be making, but I do recall the beautiful article called WP:ROWN Danvolodar (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I don't live in Turkey, I have never been and I know no one from there, so don't pretend that I'm being patriotic here, I have no reason to want Ankata on this list. Secondly, Istanbul is a transcontinental city, with in fact most of the Skyscrapers on this list on the "Asian" side of Istanbul, so your lack of knowledge of this doesn't seem to qualify you to speak academically or try to "lecture me" on the borders of Europe. For the record I am a European citizen, I know the traditional, most conservative definition of Europe is at the Bosphorus and the Urals but there are some arguments that Ankara, by extension of Turkey, can be considered a part of Europe and the fact that you do not understand this is worrying. If you are ***so*** determined to have it removed and want to go to the trouble of reverting it **every single time** then why not just remove all the "non-European" cities also on this list. After all, you sound like you're an expert in the field. (also Hong Kong was never an integral part of the UK, but continue talking nonsense and ranting and messing the quality of the article). BenBezuidenhout (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Federation Tower
It is need to update picture, because central section of this building (antenna) was dismantled. --193.233.70.48 (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Since when Turkey is in Europe?
Who are the genius editors that incorporate in a list of "Europe tallest buildings" constructions in Turkey?

Wikipedia is in serious need of some revamp and this article is just one example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.163.255 (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

See previous discussion. JHBledsoe (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Izmir and Ankara are in Asia, not Europe
There are several buildings on the lists which are located in Izmir and Ankara, Turkey. These cities are both in Anatolia, which is the Asian part of Turkey. I think they should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHBledsoe (talk • contribs) 16:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

And what about Istanbul? Given that most of the skyscrapers are on the "Asian" side of Istanbul? Should we remove all the towers in Cyprus, Georgia, Azerbaijan too? BenBezuidenhout (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I would say that any building that is not in Europe should not be on the list. I don't know Istanbul well enough to know which of these buildings are in Asia and not Europe, but the ones that are in Asia should be removed. Istanbul seems to be very proud of the fact that it is in two continents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHBledsoe (talk • contribs) 20:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Istanbul seems to be very proud of the fact that it is in two continents." - so is Turkey. Should we keep all of Turkey's cities then because it's considered transcontinental (like Istanbul)? BenBezuidenhout (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

There are certain places where it is not exactly clear where the boundary between Europe and Asia lies. In Turkey it is very clear where the continental boundary is. To repeat what I said earlier, I do not not think that a building that is not clearly or at least arguably geographically in Europe should be on this list. I also do not think that a building that is in the European part of Istanbul should be on the list of the tallest buildings in Asia simply because part (most) of Turkey is in Asia. Hypothetically, should a building in Vladivostok, Russia be on the list of the tallest buildings in Europe simply because part of Russia is in Europe? Should a building in Moscow be on the list of the tallest buildings in Asia because most of Russia is in Asia? I don't think so. This is my opinion and I stand by it, but I certainly recognize that others are entitled to their own opinions. JHBledsoe (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Batumi and Yekaterinburg aren't in Europe either. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So has a concensus been reached yet? I do believe that we need to organize the article geographically, not socio-culturally. Therefore tallest buildings in European Turkey should be on this list. (Central Data Bank (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC))

Architectural tip
How come several buildings on the list, such as the Istanbul Sapphire, are only listed to their roof height instead of their architectural tip? Building lists on Wikipedia list buildings to their architectural tip, instead of roof height. I don't mean antennas for signal transmission. (Central Data Bank (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tallest buildings in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928223805/http://www.roche.com/med-cor-2009-12-17 to http://www.roche.com/med-cor-2009-12-17

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Usce tower, Belgrade
I removed this building from the list because it has only 25 storeys and, as such, can't logically be 141m tall. With the antenna maybe, but then we would have to put Commerzbank in Frankfurt to n.1. (300m with the antenna) Vjeko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjeko138 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

When is a building in a city?
If one places footnotes regarding buildings not in the city of Paris then surely the same applies to building not in the city of London - the Shard and Strata are in Southwark and the docklands building are in Tower Hamlets. Davroche — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davroche (talk • contribs) 18:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Completed buildings
Can you please stick to not jumping the gun and only include completed buildings in the list section? We don't need to resort to an edit war and waste our time. BenBezuidenhout (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Turkey
I think to address the confusion over what is counted as Europe we should stick to a geographic consensus and include a note. Therefore, this would exclude most Turkish cities (notable exception being the trans-continental city of Istanbul) and "Asian" Russian. By allowing cities like Izmir and Ankara into the rankings there is no reason to not include, for example, the towers in Astana or Almaty given that Kazakhstan is also technically a transcontinental nation. How are we defining Europe here? BenBezuidenhout (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Is the Shard the 5th or 6th tallest building in Europe?
The article The Shard says it is "the fifth-tallest building in Europe".

The article List of tallest buildings in Europe shows it sixth, after Lakhta Center, Federation Tower: East Tower, OKO: South Tower, Neva Towers 2, and Mercury City Tower.

I don't know which is wrong, but they can't both be right.

Please determine which is right and correct the other one.

47.139.41.246 (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yekaterinburg
According to the Russian Wikipedia, Yekaterinburg is located in Asia but I cannot check that source there. The English WP says "it is situated on the border of Europe and Asia" with no sources. Thoughts? P.S. As to me, I've never heard that YEKT is an Asian city, frankly speaking.--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * FrankfurtSkyline2014.jpg

Augsburg City Hall
Why is it impossible that the Augsburg City Hall was the tallest of its time in Europe ? --87.138.186.159 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Civility and cooperation
After User:Александр Мотин ban the situation with civility and cooperation in this article has improved, but now it seems to be worse again. Please try to be civil and cooperative with your edits again, discuss the major changes first here in talk, do not use reverts to enforce your opinion (or even socket-puppets for revert wars). We are trying to create content for our readers and not to wage endless wars.Jklamo (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)