Talk:List of tallest buildings in the world
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Architectural history. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
[edit] October 2005 issue of National Geographic
According to the October 2005 issue of National Geographic, "Taipei Towers Above All Others" and "At 1,670 feet, the 101-story skyscraper dubbed Taipei 101 eclipses by 187 feet what were the tallest buildings in the world: the twin Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumper, Malaysia."
The magazine also goes on to state the "20th-Century Records" as...
Taepei 101 Taiwan,
1,670 feet, 2005
Sears Tower Chicago
1,450 feet, 1974
World Trade Center Towers New York
1,368 and 1,362 feet, 1972 and 1973
Empire State Building New York
1,250 feet, 1931
Chrysler Building New York
1,046 feet, 1930
I think the National Geographic has their sources correct. The Sears Tower is NOT the tallest building. The below skyscraper image cannot, and should not, be trusted.
[edit] Units
I added back in units, which are needed in a list this long and, also more convienet for c&p. I had edit conflict so I will try add that stuff back in. Greyengine5 02:18, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yikes, sorry for the edit conflict. :) --Golbez 02:44, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Np! I got most but not all of yours so you might want to check it out. hazards of wiki-ing! Greyengine5 02:46, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Sears Tower
Look at this picture and tell me Sears Tower isn't highest Image:Skyscrapercompare1.PNG. Or at least higher than the Petronas Towers.--Jerryseinfeld 01:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The world body that handles these kinds of things considers spires part of the height, but not antennae. The spires on Petronas just manage to peek over Sears' roof. However, we all know it's not really the tallest, it has only 88 floors compared to 108 or 110, I forget, and its top floor is much lower. However, the least POV way of handling this is to stick with what the CTBUH says, and mention that image and the different interpretations. Taipei at least finally settles the bulk of the battles, by being taller than both Sears' top floor, and Petronas' spire - but it's still not taller than Sears' antenna. --Golbez 08:52, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Bank of China
The link from BOC (Shanghay) (No. 75) leads to BOC (Hong Kong) (No. 11). Please Fix it. 85.64.106.107 12:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Done. Lawrence Lavigne 13:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Two buildings to watch in Australia
- Q1, Gold Coast, Queensland. Basically finished, 275m to roof, 323m to top of spire.
- Eureka Tower, Melbourne. Finished in 2006, 322.5m to roof, with a 53.75m communications mast being proposed.
JamesHoadley 03:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
These are both apartment buildings, so I'm left asking, is there a list for World's Tallest Apartment Buildings? ie Non-Commercial.
[edit] Observation towers and other structures
Currently The CN Tower in Toronto Canada is the tallest free standing structure (it is not considered a skyscrapper) it is currently the tallest man-made structure in the word. There are plans for a taller tower to be built in Tokyo, Japan, though as of April 28th, 2006 construction has not begun.
[edit] Freedom tower
Shouldn't Freedom Tower be listed here? --Brianhe 06:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps, in a "future" section. --Golbez 06:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] China
China is China. Taiwan is Taiwan. Hong Kong is a SAR of the People's Republic of China. Alanmak and Instantnood are so busy edit warring over this article, that they've screwed up wikilinks. The "Bank of China Tower" repeatedly became "Bank of the People's Republic of China of Tower". KNOCK IT OFF. SchmuckyTheCat 22:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- From the first two sentences it's pretty clear that user:SchmuckyTheCat is still asserting his point of view, which is in contradition with the official political NPOV policy on Wikipedia regarding Chinese-related topics. And, for everone's information, it was user:Alanmak's first recent edits to this list [1] that Bank of China Tower was replaced with Bank of People’s Republic of China Tower. [2] — Instantnood 22:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing about using the names "China" and "Taiwan" to refer to China and Taiwan contradicts any Wikipedia policy. And I don't care who changed it, you reverted to it, which is all I need to know about whether or not you're actually paying attention to your edits or just revert warring. SchmuckyTheCat 23:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recent edits by user:Alanmak..
Regarding [3] [4] [5] - In his edits user:Alanmak, notably this edit sumamry, is demonstrating that he has effectively disregarded the constitutional status of special administrative region with respect to the administrative division hierarchy of the People's Republic of China (PRC) (Cf. articles 30 and 31 of the 1982 Constitution of the PRC). He has kept asserting his point of view that special administrative regions are ordinary subnational entities, comparable with provinces and equivalence of the PRC. He has also equated the English words country and sovereign state, or more accruately, regarding them as synonym, as reflected by this edit summary. — Instantnood 22:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- The removal of parentheses from "People's Republic of China" from a Wikipedia article has nothing to do with the constitutional provisions of the People's Republic of China or Hong Kong's status in the world. You'll notice that Hong Kong is the only sub-national entity of the PRC called out in the article. SchmuckyTheCat 00:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- For the purpose of the discussion here I won't go into arguing on whether or not special administrative regions are subnational entities (for some may even argue colonies and protectorates are also subnational entities with very different degree of separation.) Nevertheless it's never wrong to say they're not ordinary subnational entities or administrative divisions. — Instantnood 08:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Commerzbank Tower
I am confused to where the Commerzbank Tower should be placed. The tower is 300.1 metres tall when measured up to the signal light. However, this spire which positions the signal light on the tower is removed from it's statistics and the tower has only been measured upto the roof of the building which is 259 metres. I am confused to whether this structure placed on top of the building can be classified as an architecturally integral element. - Erebus555 17:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes it can and must be taken into account. Somebody please put it up on the list.- THe iP 12:53, 26. September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tallest Skyscrapers Table Reformatting
The table of the tallest skyscrapers should be reformatted. Currently, the every five entries goes W-G-W-G-W and then repeats. The table would look better if it alternated between this pattern and the inverse of it so that there was a continual alteration of white and grey. If this is followed through, it might be good to remove the grey cells in between the groups of five. I wanted to check for any conflicting ideas for how the table should be formatted before I changed such a large table. —David618 00:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've created an example of my proposed reformating. —David618 00:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I changed the order of the colors in the table but have left the breaks every five entries in place. —David618 00:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Buildings Under Construction
Should we include buildings currently under construction in this list? Like Burj Dubai? It currently should be around the 30th tallest building in the world. --KCMODevin 19:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- I dont think so because they are constantly changing. I think they should be added when they have been officially topped out. The Burj Dubai is still under construction and will be for a couple more years. It will keep growing and passing through the ranks. I think it should be more of a case if they should be added when topped out or when actually completed and opened... - Erebus555 20:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, we should have a future section, and as the buildings reach certain heights structurally, they should be moved up through the list. --KCMODevin 19:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Good idea but I still think that it would take too much updating. Buildings are constantly growing and when a new floor has been constructed or added then that would mean it is updated on the list and when you consider that a floor is added at least every day, it would not be worth it. For example, the Rose Rotana Suites saw some of the fastest construction ever for a skyscraper of its size, this would have had to be constantly updated if a future section was added. Therefore, I consider it impractical. - Erebus555 19:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It's impractical for a small amount of people, but this is a more popular article than others, and it wouldn't take much work. Plus this site does NOT have to be 100% up to date with a u/c building's height floor to floor. It just should be updated as it reaches significant heights... Burj Dubai was announced to be at about 287m recently. We should just go with their announcements, as it raises through the list, it should likewise be updated. It would also currently be the world's 42nd tallest building. --KCMODevin 20:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I understand that but how many developers give out anouncements like the Burj Dubai. The Burj Dubai is to become the worlds tallest building so there is a lot of focus on it. For the shorter buildings such as the IFC in Shanghai and the Trump Tower in Chicago, there are not announcements. It will be difficult and really not worth the effort. - Erebus555 20:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Who says that we have to do this with every building out there? --KCMODevin 20:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well what buildings are going to include on your list then? Ones which are going to be in the top 200 when completed? Well then the IFC in Shanghai will be one and that still doesnt get construction updates. I'm sorry but this list really is not going to be helpful. The only example you give is the Burj Dubai, can you think of any other towers outside Dubai which give out announcement and should be included on this list. Freedom Tower would be one - again - there is focus on it because it is such a sensitive issue among alot of people. - Erebus555 14:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, and apparently you didn't read it or understand it... Onlly do it with significant top 20-30 buildings that do these annoucements. Like Burj Dubai and Freedom Tower --KCMODevin 19:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Countries vs. sovereign states
Re [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] - In the article the titles of those columns are country. Country ≠ sovereign state. Cf. list of countries and list of sovereign states. — Instantnood 20:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is a list of skyscrapers, not a list of political entities, so please avoid politicising it. Insisting on writing "Hong Kong (People's Republic of China" or even "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" adds repeatitive information and unnecesary clutter to the table. Please do not expect general readers to know the difference between your politicised use of commas and parentheses.--Huaiwei 00:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'd wonder who's politicising. Web-based E-Mail account registration, economic information in The Economist, place of origin of exported productions, etc., what's written for Hong Kong? China? or People's Republic of China? Why do we have a list of countries and a list of sovereign states? — Instantnood 08:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hong Kong, Hong Kong is equally unhelpful. SchmuckyTheCat 08:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'd wonder who's politicising. Web-based E-Mail account registration, economic information in The Economist, place of origin of exported productions, etc., what's written for Hong Kong? China? or People's Republic of China? Why do we have a list of countries and a list of sovereign states? — Instantnood 08:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
