Talk:List of tallest buildings in the United States

Cutoff
Should we leave the cutoff at 800 ft or decrease it to 700?192.231.40.122 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would we decrease it? NYC list is at 650ft/200m, so 700 for the entire country seems too low, even 750/230 is not really that tall when the entire country is considered. 81.177.27.61 (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also be in favor of a 700 ft cutoff in the name of inclusivity. Sfoske70 (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The cutoff actually was 700 feet on an older version of this article. It was changed to 800 feet in a revision dated 12 May 2021 by an unregistered user and the new cutoff seems to have stuck. Personally I'm in favor of this list being more inclusive than exclusive. There are not that many buildings between 700 and 800 feet, so the list wouldn't have to be too much longer. Freehuggs21 (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weakly oppose, maybe 750 ft could be justified, but 700 ft is no longer tall enough to be significant in terms of height when talking about skyscrapers in the United States. 71.62.176.24 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Measurement unit ordering inconsistency
In the height column, some entries display meters first, with feet in parentheses, while others are the opposite, displaying feet first, with meters in parentheses. Is there a reason for this inconsistency, or should it be resolved? (probably to feet first since this is a non-scientific US-centric article, per MOS:UNITS) P 1 (talk / contributions) 14:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes feet should be consistently used first, there may be a script that changes the templates to be uniform quickly, 71.62.176.24 (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Missing Brooklyn tower
Should be around #12 2600:1017:B8C2:5D9C:AC29:84F9:5CA1:325D (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It is there, currently at 18th and should fall further soon. 71.62.176.24 (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Eh?
So, One wtc 2013-present keeps pinnacle height but empire state doesnt? 2607:FEA8:FDC0:8179:60D1:9A25:F2A1:FB3A (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You are getting pinnacle and architectural height confused. The architectural height of the ESB is 1,250 ft, and for 1WTC is 1,776 ft. Presently, as of 2024, pinnacle height for the ESB is 1,454 ft, and for 1WTC is 1,792 ft. Pinnacle height includes antennas and other elements that can be swapped or added/removed. The ESB's antenna has been previously swapped out as prior to 1985 it was instead 1,472 ft to its pinnacle. Whereas architectural height includes permanent elements of the skyscraper only. In short only architectural height is used, and the permanent spires of the BOA Tower and 1WTC are just a larger percentage of their height. Previously roof-height was sometimes used instead to avoid this confusion, however skyscrapers, such as he Burj Khalifa, have no clear delineation as to where the roof ends and the spire begins, and so that has largely fallen out of favor. Height to highest usable floor is still in widespread use however. 71.62.176.24 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Cities with the most skyscrapers
This quite deliberately uses 500 ft as the cutoff as MOS:NUM directs the primary use of United States customary units here. There may be a case for raising the value to 600 ft, or even 800 ft to match the main table, but changing to 492 ft is a poor decision, especially as the purpose appears to be that of getting certain cities higher on the list.

Another thing to be mindful of is that it is necessary when changing a columns value to update all entries in the column, not just those of one preferred entry. In this case many of those swings would be quite large, and the result of simply relabeling was to degrade the accuracy of the material. 2603:7000:8B00:2B01:595F:7721:364E:D509 (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You’re breaking rules here. In the U.S we go off https://www.ctbuh.org/ rankings and what they classify as a skyscraper, since they make up the rules in the skyscraper world. 150 Meters translates to 492 feet, so it’s not “getting cities higher” on a list. It’s just factually correct. The misinformation on your page isn’t only about San Francisco. Austin is also incorrect. I will continue to keep changing it to the CORRECT ranking. Which is 492 feet not 500, and I will make sure to spread the word via social media for you guys to take accountability for speeding false information and falsifying records for possible self satisfaction on your own city to have a higher ranking. This has never been an issue and must be addressed correctly. 2603:9008:1200:27F9:9DDE:E197:D561:FDC1 (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally engaging on this page.
 * First things first, assuming you are not a vandal, robo-reverts to any changes that are not your own have caused the table to be factually inaccurate when you try to use 492. As just one example, you would need to allow New York to move from 302 to 317. Many others would also have to be adjusted accordingly.
 * Secondly Wikipedia does not go off of any one definition. Indeed there is no single definition for a skyscrpaper, Emporis for example used 100 meters. It is true that the CTBUH values are widely repeated in reference, but that does not make them the only standard. As just one example List of tallest buildings in San Francisco does not use it.
 * Ultimately these cutoffs are set by page consensus, and actually this page mostly uses 800 ft. Now it could be 555 ft or 553 ft. And in the end there is nothing that prevents column seperations of 108 ft starting at 461 ft or 143 ft starting at 339 ft but you do need to gain consensus for that change, bearing in mind MOS:NUM. But the page was accurate in its ranking of cities by number of buildings over 500 ft until you started to mess around with it and robo-revert anyone who wasn't you. 2603:7000:8B00:2B01:E4A8:4D80:60D7:D855 (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And now I feel silly for trying to WP:AGF, but yeah the number for NYC at 492 would be 316 or 317, depending on the precise definition of complete, but now you tried to change it to 348. I know you think this kind of subtle trolling makes you clever, but it doesn't. 2603:7000:8B00:2B01:E4A8:4D80:60D7:D855 (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)