Talk:List of tallest buildings

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.

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)

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)

"Currently Taipei 101 tops all categories except highest point, where the Sears Tower is highest." -- and except for highest real piece of building that isn't just tacked on to try and cheat the record -- Sears Tower is still tallest, even when counting floors, for real, because the highest floors aren't just a frigging space capsule tacked on top.Citation Not Needed (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

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.

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)

Why, it is currently under construction - wiki it. NuttyProSci-Fi3000 23:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

I'm afraid I don't care what your care and what you don't. All I need to is your're not adhering to an official policy of Wikipedia. — Instantnood 08:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with SchmuckyTheCat here, that the People's Republic of China Tower, while it might agree with Wikipedia's PC approach to everything, is not very necessary. Everyone realises that you are talking about China when used on its own, and if people are so politically agitated by this change then I'm sure they can waste their time writing in here about it. But for sheer stylistic purposes, I think it should be kept simply, and referred to as, China. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Recent pictures

I know someone put new pics up on the article, which is good for variety, but shouldn't we have a limit to what can and can't be? Also, is there any thought of creating a gallery? I was thinking no buildings under 300m and only one per country; that way, we don't have a gallery 36 deep. Any thoughts? EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 14:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Torre Espacio in Madrid (236 m): construction is over

Torre Espacio was inaugurated by Madrid's major today, so I guess it should be added to the list. Here's a link to the piece of news (in Spanish, sorry): http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/03/19/madrid/1174336648.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.6.31.205 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Topped-out or completed?

Which is appropriate to go into the Top 200: topped-out buildings or completed ones? Since the Ryugyong Hotel's on the list, I'm assuming topped-out (since it's not offically compete), but I have been wrong before. Thoughts? EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 18:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge with List of tallest buildings in Europe, List of tallest churches in the world, List of buildings with 100 floors or more

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Concensus was 'against merging --Jklamo 16:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think these merges would make Wikipedia more user friendly.--JEF 22:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

About the list of talles churches. I strongly disagree, this is a fairly well kept list and the topic is of interest; also very important older medieval churches may be the first to go from a merged list becasue they no longer exist, or on the current height of buildings score lowly. As a church they are worth mentioning, but maybe not as a building, hence the lists need to be separate. Anyway merging all those cats here will make this list explode into literally many, many thousands of entries. Arnoutf 07:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If they are not notable as a building, but are as a church then how would you explain the first statement in the article that asserts "From the Middle Ages until the advent of the skyscraper, Christian churches have been among the tallest buildings in the world." You are right that this list is a good article but this article has space and this great list would be more visible and garner more edits if it was on this page (which it needs as it is an incomplete list as stated at the bottom of the article); that's all I'm saying.--JEF 21:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Because a 50 meter tall church (height of app a 15 story apartment building) was very very notable by about 1200. Indeed, in the middle ages these heights were notable but no longer, I see no contradiction in my earlier statement Arnoutf 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It is historically notable as it reflects changes in the list of tallest buildings over time which is relevant to this article. We could even create a level 2 section entitled history of the tallest buildings in the world and put it as a level 3 subheader in there. The possibilities for incorporating it into this article are almost endless.--JEF 22:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Euhm yes, that is my main objection, no single article should be endless. Arnoutf 17:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that the article could be endless; I am saying that the possibilities for incorportating it are.--JEF 18:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is (in my epxerience with list of towers) that with endless possibilities the list will be endless as well. So no to this merge from me. Arnoutf 18:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if we incorporated it into a history section, but you have obviously made up your mind.--JEF 18:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Strongly Against. This is the list of buildings in Europe. Not of the entire world. 2. List of Tallest Structures in the world already exceed recommended limit. It's already too big. Elk Salmon 18:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Europe is a large part of the world and we could use it to expand the various continents in the largest buildings by continent section and leave the countries their own articles; it is just a suggestion. Also, I was thinking of moving the current list of tallest structures to a different title and then splitting List of tallest buildings and structures in the world.--JEF 18:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Strongly Against. With all of this talk of merging, please first understand the current organization. Go to List of buildings and check out the tallest list organization. I put a subset of that list into the See Also section of this article. Please do not merge any of these articles without understanding the current organization. There are lists of buildings, lists of structures, and lists of buildings and structures - all of which are unique and organized (after much effort I might add). Bhludzin 02:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree about churches. Why on earth would we want to merge an article about specific types of building into a general article? People who are interested in churches are not necessarily interested in the wider subject of buildings. -- Necrothesp 00:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It is about the world's tallest churches (not just churches) and people who are interested in the world tallest buildings will also be interested in older tall building (churches) and vice versa.--JEF 00:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. A rather presumptuous statement. I'm interested in churches (indeed, I'm responsible for a large portion of the list), but not particularly in other tall buildings. I think you may be assuming that your own interests are shared by all others, which is always dangerous. The two lists stand perfectly well independently, are about distinct subjects, and should be left as such. -- Necrothesp 09:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge The list of tallest churches is very useful on it's own and it'd lose it's character if merged here. The article is already list-cluttered enough as it is. Sagittarian Milky Way 10:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Against both of them. Continent based list is valuable, because distribution of skycrapers is not equable between continents, most of TOP 200 is in North America and Asia. Also for churches, list is uniqe, muliple interwikified. While merged here, it can be cut-off because its length and that is i afraid of. --Jklamo 14:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Shin Kong Life Tower

Is there any reason why the Shin Kong Life Tower in Taipei is not on this list? At 245m it should be tied for 113th place [17] and I can't think of a reason why having it here would be controversial. I'd add it myself but I'm wary of screwing up the table.

Actually, there seem to be a lot of buildings on the list at Emporis.com that are not listed here. FrogBalancer 07:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent reverts

OK, last time I tried asking a question on this page, out of respect for its content, I was completely ignored so I just added it anyway. Ergo, at the risk of wasting my time again, here goes:

Not only did the revert I did bring the list to some sort of tolerable viewability, it also corrected some numbering mistakes by previous people. For example (commas added for ease in viewing):

=138 Woolworth Building, New York City, United States, 241 m, 792 ft, 57, 1913
=138 IDS Tower, Minneapolis, United States, 241 m, 792 ft, 55, 2002
=138 Maxdo Centre, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, 241 m, 792 ft, 55, 2002
=138 Mellon Bank Center, Philadelphia, United States, 241 m, 792 ft, 54, 1990
=138 Bank of China Mansion, Qingdao, People's Republic of China, 241 m, 791 ft, 54, 1999

What's wrong with this picture? The fact of the Bank of China Mansion being listed with them because it's the same height meter-wise, but not in feet. That's ok, I thought, because it's probably consistant throughout. However, I find this, among other, example:

123 MetLife Building, New York City, United States, 246 m, 808 ft, 60, 1963
124 Bloomberg Tower, New York City, United States, 246 m, 806 ft, 54, 2005

There are numerous of these errors in the list, and since we don't have a standardized format, I'm assuming the second example is correct, as even though it may be the same height meter-wise, a meter is 3.2+/- larger than a foot, and therefore feet are more accurate when rounding. So, that's why I reverted your edit, and if you find it too difficult to change things appropriately when you add an edifice to the list, please save the edits for someone who's more able to correct them the right way. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply, but is was not on wiki for a few days. In my edits i just updated list from emporis [18] (that mean i added more than 20 recent buildings). Every data are from there (including these meter-feet differences. I think that emporis is credible source, so still i do not know why my edits are reverted. If they are more errors, plese correct it in my updated list instead of that older one. --Jklamo 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edit, not out of spite for your work, but because it took me an hour to correct all the errors and I wasn't going to do it again. Yeah, it's kind of a selfish reason, but unless anyone else wants to fix the edits, someone has to do it. So, please feel free to add the buildings, as it'll make this list more complete and accurate, but keep the errors in mind and add new buildings accordingly...that's all I ask. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 14:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

List of 200

Because the main list is so long and many of the buildings don't even have articles or are terribly tall, I suggest that it be cut to the top 150 or 100. I will cut it to 150 in a week if there are no objections. Reywas92^{TalkReview me} 23:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Emporis list [19] goes up to 200. I'm sure that's a reliable source. Sagittarian Milky Way 01:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Torre Mayor listed twice

In the list of highest skyscrapers by architectural detail, Torre Mayor in Mexico City is listed twice: first as the 173rd tallest, and second as the 186th tallest. The difference between the height figures given is two meters, or eight feet. 24.62.234.209 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Burj Dubai

The article on the Burj Dubai actually says the Council on Tall Buildings does not consider it the building tallest in the world. "We will not classify it as a building until it is complete, clad and at least partially open for business to avoid things like the Ryungyong project. Taipei 101 is thus officially the world's tallest until that happens." So why does this article consider it the tallest in the world??? Clearly Taipei 101 still is until the Burj Dubai is completed. I think the article should be reverted. --Thankyoubaby 20:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

According to this article AFP article, the Burj Dubai is now 555 meters tall and the tallest free-standing structure in the world

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070913/wl_mideast_afp/uaedubaiconstructiontower_070913122359;_ylt=ApKCDXx0UQLzjpSmh.7tiLME1vAI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.247.46 (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Recognition by the council (who's arguments are understandable) or not, on 7 April 2008 the Official Burj Dubai website announced that the building had reached a height of 629 meter (160 stories) and thus exceeded the height of the previous tallest structure on earth, KVLY-TV tower. The announcement triggered immediate and unwanted response on April 11, in form of the first unauthorised sky diver sneeking in and trying to jump off. (User:Helgex) 18:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is currenly 663m tall, with 160 floors completed and it should be not only in the tallest structure, but also tallest building. Want a citation? Just google it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.8.157.72 (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The status of "tallest building" is only used for habitable structures which are topped out or are complete. The Burj Dubai is still under construction and therefore is not a building. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I have much more to offer except this building shouldn't be on the list! Until someone's occupying the top floor, it's just a lot of concrete!BashBrannigan (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

By CTBUH standards, Burj Dubai should definitely be topping the completed list, as it's topped-out, as Leitmanp pointed out above (however, it wasn't topped-out at the time of his comment). --timsdad ^(talk) 01:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

London Bridge Tower

Could someone please add London Bridge ToWER to Buildings Under Contruction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.2.251 (talk) 16:10, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't belong on the list, because it is not under construction yet. It is still only approved. See here and here. When it officially begins construction (which is not scheduled to occur until 2008), it can be added. Raime 16:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Aspire Tower

I am dubious about Aspire Tower presence in the list. It is more likely tower than skyscraper. I am for exclude in from that list. What is your opinion about that? --Jklamo 14:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed Aspire Tower because of lack continuous occupiable floors (see pic Image:AspireTowerDoha.jpg) criterion mentioned in lead section. --Jklamo 02:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree; the tower should not be included in the list. Rai-me 02:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Time to expand adjust list?

I think this list would be more complete if we added all of the world's tallest buildings that stand over 200 meters, not just the world's tallest 200 buildings. Using height minimums rather than designated numbers seems to make more sense. Rai-me 21:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Doing so will make the list insanely long and the article already is over the 40K threshold. It's already hard to negotiate right now, so why add to it? The page already takes forever to load. In fact, I think the page should be shrunk to satisfy size req's, but I haven't figured out how to yet w/out severe determent to the content. Once I figure that out, I'll ket you know, but in any case, I absolutely disagree w/adding more. EaglesFanInTampa 22:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

40K threshold? This does not seem overly huge to me. But I see what you are saying; the loading is becoming a problem. Yet I still think that some sort of height minimum should be instated, even if it is not 200 meters. Rai-me 23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree and agree with EaglesFanInTampa. Maybe 300m limit for all list can be considered and 300- content from top 200 moved to separate page. --Jklamo 03:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. While I think we need a height limit, 300 meters is just too high; it would severly limit the content of this list. However, dividing the buildings up into separate pages is a possibilty. But, if this occurs, I see no reason why we cannot expand the scope to buildings which do not fall into the "top 200" range, as slow loading would no longer be an issue. Rai-me 19:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

300 meters - 35 entries

250 meters - 112 entries

200 meters > 200 entries (AXA no 200 = 229 m)

I think 250 meters seems fair, a list of around 100 entries gives a good overview of the most relevant buildings without being overly long. Arnoutf 20:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright proposal, but I still think a ranking limit, not just a height limit, will suffice, because as buildings are built to ever increasing heights, they lose their relevance. Look at the six I had to remove the other day: they were part of the top 200, but due to other newer, taller buildings being erected, they no longer needed to be discussed. Having a height limit makes buildings that, because 250m is a large number now, will still be considered "important" long after their height is considered minuscule. If the current trend being set by the Burj Dubai and Al Burj of mega-tall structures continues, this list will longer than necessary. Let's keep it Top ###, but let's make it 150 instead of 200 to shorten the space. EaglesFanInTampa 21:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I diagree, and prefer Arnoutf's proposal. Buildings do not really lose relevance when they drop from 200th place to 201st (or 150th to 151st) place. A height limit would prevent these removals from occurring. If the list becomes ridiculously long, then the height limit can be changed. Any building over 250 meters will, at least for the present and the near future, be among the tallest in the world, and derserve to be on the list IMO. I think that instating a 250 meter height limit would be the best option at this point. There is no guarantee that mega-structures will soon be constructed regularly, but if they are, then the height limit can expand to 300 m or more. Rai-me 21:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

They lack towers

they forget the tower Bicentenario and the tower Bicentenariol II and others of the city of Mexico

Mile High Tower

Hello everyone , User:Fa9ooli has established an article about Mile High Tower which should reach a 1,600 m hight when the construction will complete .  A M M A R  14:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Shall we include it into the list of skyscapers under construction ?  A M M A R  01:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. As that is twice the height of the already-record-shattering Burj Dubai, I find it extremely unlikely that it will be built. Anyway, I don't think it is officially under constuction at this time. Reywas92^Talk 02:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging buildings under construction with existing ones

I think that we should really merge the existing list of tallest buildings in the world, with the frankly unecessary list of buildings under construction. We should simply add the planned ones into the table, but include the date they plan to be finished on and any other details, rather than seperating them into two tables. It would make it a lot easier also to compare the height of planned and under construction buildings against existing ones, something which I think would be appreciated by a fair few people. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am totally disagree. It is about probability, many of buildings never left planning stage, some buildings are cancelled or on-holded during construction. So why have them all in one table with completed (or at least topped out) buildings? I think current separate table solution is better. --Jklamo (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

World Trade Centre towers

Why are these included in the tallest height-to-roof and tallest height-to-pinnacle lists when they shouldn't be? Perhaps a footnote indicating their former position would be more appropriate. Opera hat (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a kind of "edit summary discussion" about it, but surprisingly no discussion on this page, so let us discuss it.

My opinion is to inculde them into the main table to proper position, but without ranking, italicized or on the another background (or both of them). --Jklamo (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why they should be included in the list when they don't exist anymore. Yes they were beautiful buildings and it was all very sad, but please, and with respect, move on. --Joowwww (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

CN Tower?

The CN Tower, at 553 m isn't mentioned in this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.133.123 (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because the CN Tower isn't technically a building; it's a "structure" and appears in the List of tallest structures in the world. The difference is a building is inhabitable on a permanent basis (like an office, hotel, condo, etc.), whereas a structure (in this context) is pretty much any type of tower that's not habitable (like the CN Tower, guyed masts, and "buildings"). Hopefully, that helps clarify it a little. EaglesFanInTampa 12:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Color coding

I think the alternating colors of the tables in this list is great. But it is very hard to maintain and to ensure each entry alternates. Every time a building is added, an editor must go through each entry to change the colors. This is very time consuming and happens often with new buildings being completed or topped out. Is there a better way to do this? Do you think it might be easier to just get rid of it? Any ideas? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has responded yet, I will leave another message here. Please leave your suggestions about what we can do so that we do not have to change the coloring each time another building is added. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 01:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the same thing be true of rank? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid there is no better way to do that. I was searching some easier way some time ago, i found one html attribute, that allow different setting for even and odd table row, but unfortunately that attribute is not implemented in wiki table syntax. I foud maintenance of coloring also very boring and time consuming, but i also feel that it improve readability of table a lot. So i am not sure if leave it or remove it. --Jklamo (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sagittarian Milky Way, I guess you are right about the rank. But, we know that the rank is necessary and the coloring is not.

Jklamo, do you think we may be able to create a template that automatically changes the coloring for every other entry. Instead of different colors for odd or even (which would not work since some entries have the same rank; i.e. Petronas Towers), the colors should change for the entry itself, regardless of the number in the rank. But, if this is not possible then I guess we should leave it alone until we can think of something else. I also think readability is improved by the colors but I find it very hard to maintain. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Petronas Towers

I strongly disagree with the Petronas towers being counted seperately —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.228.17 (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are two towers. The efforts to build them doubled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.238.43 (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nanjing Greenland Financial Complex

This building should be added to the list. It was topped out on September 6. The architectural top is 450m. http://www.njglgroup.com/chinese/asp/news_view.asp?id=201 http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=305916&page=32 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.238.43 (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is in the list in the under-construction section. If you can find a source that is in English, or is not a forum, then feel free to update the building's article and this article. timsdad ^(talk) 06:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have found sources stating it is topped out, they are external links on the building's page. I have changed the completed list to reflect this, and added a note explaining the topped-out status and the expected completion date of 2009.timsdad ^(talk) 07:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, now that this building has been added to the list, there's another issue that just cropped up on the amount of floors the building truly has. Please see Talk:Nanjing Greenland Financial Center for details (better to keep it all in one place). EaglesFanInTampa 13:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorting

I didn't test exhaustively, but there is something wrong with the "sort" feature of at least the first table. The Country names sort correctly, except for the United Kingdom, which gets placed before the "A"s. Trying to sort by the Floors or Built column produces an appearently random result. 71.242.202.228 (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional: While the list is initially sorted by Rank, actually clicking the Rank sorting link produced a non-numerical sort, where 1 is followed by 10, ect. 71.242.202.228 (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Height to Roof is Wrong

I noticed the table of the top 40 buildings in height to roof is actually missing buildings. It goes right down to 880 ft, skipping First Canadian Place which is about 980 feet, I assume there are more missing. TostitosAreGross (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed it according to SkyscraperPage's ordering of buildings to their roof height, yet some were in this list but not on SkyscraperPage, and some were in SkyscraperPage but not in this list. I left the ones that were in the list there, as well as adding others that were missing and fixing some heights and ordering. Hopefully it's all correct now, but if you spot anything feel free to let me know. Thanks, timsdad ^(talk) 09:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong, China

A user has recently added 'China' to the end of 'Hong Kong' in the list's country column for all buildings in this area. My interest is that the Hong Kong flag be completely replaced with {{flag|China}}, as Hong Kong is listed as the city in which each building is. As I am not sure about whether Hong Kong should be considered a country in this case, I'd like some more input before the changes get reverted. IMO, it certainly cannot be left as "Hong Kong, China". --timsdad ^(talk) 01:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why can't it? That's how it joins international organizations and sports. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Either the country is Hong Kong, or the country is China. "Hong Kong" in the city column is enough to show that the building is in Hong Kong. --timsdad ^(talk) 01:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a binary question like that. Sorry. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

This discussion totally out of scope of article, because it simply isn´t question related to buildings. In fact choosing Hong Kong, China ... Honk Kong, Hong Kong ... Hong Kong or China ... Honk Kong will not improve article, because all of them are disputed. So unfortunately no matter what option we choose, even it will be changed by anonymous IPs or new users to other option. Because of that some strong consensus about that, that will be kept for longer time is needed. I think the best is option is China (as coutry) and Hong Kong (as city), simply because it not list one information twice, as other options. But if there will be strong consensus about other option, i will join it. --Jklamo (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong is administratively different enough, and has enough presence in the table, to justify it. "Hong Kong, China" is an official name for Hong Kong's presence at international conferences and summits and is appropriate here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

If we are going to stick with official names at international organisations and sports, we'd gotta replace Taiwan with Chinese Taipei (and the flag too), United States with United States of America, Russia with Russian Federation (though it isn't really a federation), or perhaps North Korea with Korea DPR. Montemonte (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I certainly don't agree with changing all of the countries to their names used in sports and international organisations, as this is simply a list of buildings. And SchmuckyTheCat, please explain enough to express your opinion. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The other countries are nation states. Hong Kong is not. Hong Kong's special arrangement within China means it should be called out on this list separately from China. "Hong Kong, China" shows it is administratively separate but maintains the special arrangement Hong Kong has within China. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

In modern times only Japan, the two Koreas and Iceland closely resemble the definition of nation state, that is, a state almost comprised of one single nation. Hong Kong is not a soveregin state. But then if Puerto Rico appears on a similar list, I doubt if there will be any user pressing to display it as Puerto Rico, United States. Montemonte (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's now time to change it back to "Hong Kong" unless we have agreed to stick with official names at international organisations and sports. Montemonte (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I haven't agreed, so yes. I think I will do that. Unless someone has a really good point to make? --timsdad ^(talk) 00:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, don't. Doing so is stepping all over a sensitive political situation for the benefit of what? The political situation of Hong Kong and its relationship with China is unique on this list. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Leaving it there could be just as offensive! We need another expert opinion on this. --timsdad ^(talk) 05:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No, this is the compromise. The alternatives are presenting it as just plain Hong Kong for both city and country, which is unacceptable because that would show Hong Kong as separate and equal to China; or, removing the HK flag and listing the country as China. Which is factually and politically correct but doesn't at all show the nuance of the situation. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Well the entire point is to indicate to the reader where the building is located. If they wanted to know the political history of Hong Kong and China, they would look it up. I now pose my original idea, which is the "factually and politically correct" option: "China" in the country column and "Hong Kong" in the city. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed the label from country to location so neutralise this. Taiwan as a country is highly disputed. The country is called the Republic of China. But having the entry listed as "Location", Taiwan becomes acceptable, as now it is no longer defined as a country. Hong Kong is also a location and I don't see why it has to be "Hong Kong, China" now.

Speaking of joining international organisations, Hong Kong indeed joins those organsations as "Hong Kong, China" but with same reasonings, should we now change Taiwan to "Chinese Taipei"? I don't think that's a good idea myself.--pyl (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I now noticed that my proposed compromise is not accepted. Should I now change all entries on Taiwan to "Republic of China", since it is clear we are politicising this matter.--pyl (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that your action would sort out the problem, and it makes sense to do. Please do not take offense, but I reverted your changes because having a 'City' column and then a 'Location' column can be confusing. I know, it's very obvious that the Location column is for countries, but I think we should leave it as 'Country' until we reach an agreement. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Really, if you want to be so literal then the country column would be "China" or "People's Republic of China", as Hong Kong is clearly not a country. In mainland China, this problem is normally sorted out by saying "countries or regions" but given the space constraints of this table, the solution is not viable. That's why I changed it to Location.

Personally, listing Taiwan as a country is unacceptable, as it breaks the NPOV rule. We will need to sort out the issues with a neutral label.--pyl (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In that last part, I was just discussing that it can't be left as 'Location' as both 'City' and 'Country' fall under the meaning of 'Location'.

I'm just not sure there are any alternatives to 'Country' apart from 'Country or something' as you said. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole situation seems to have gotten out of hand. If Hong Kong were still a colony of the Queen, would it have been listed as "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? Or if Greenland were to build a world's tallest (though virtually impossible), would it be listed as "Kingdom of Denmark"? No; the terms Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau, Greenland, Puerto Rico, et al. are all internationally-known - if not "officially" recognized by side-stepping politicos - terms, whether or not the people are fighting for self-determination, and for the sake of A LISTING OF BUILDINGS is perfectly acceptable.

In 40 days this has been going on, more constructive things could have done with your time to improve the Project. Debating the status of cities with edifice complexes placate a couple politicians who can't learn to get along in a 21st Century society is futile. And sorry timsdad and SchmuckyTheCat, as you both learned, you can't please everyone, and trying to do so is also futile. Focus more on the Project and less on personal agendas. Here's my opinion - I prefer the status quo; leave it how it was before Jan 18: Hong Kong and Taiwan. If people want to know the political history/standing of both Hong Kong and Taiwan, they can click on the location name next to the flag to read further; those names are as generic as possible in the fact that they are both the name of the islands on which they reside. Per WP:ROC, this discussion is hindering this article since it has nothing to do with the content, and it needs to be settled and closed. EaglesFanInTampa 13:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, it's a pretty minor issue that isn't preventing any other constructive editing, causing any hard feelings, and isn't an edit war. As to your idea, Wikipedia has no status quo - it's a wiki. It would also be false to call the Jan 18 date as some kind of arbitrary status quo marker, because Hong Kong had some kind of suffix after it for several years before. Hong Kong isn't an island. It's a peninsula and islands. Hong Kong and Taiwan aren't comparable, either. Hong Kong isn't a independent country (without dispute). Taiwan is (with dispute). If the list is going to organize by country then it has to show countries. Hong Kong independently joins country organizations as "Hong Kong, China". It's not a big deal. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I agree with EaglesFanInTampa and his idea to leave everything how it was before, and you can continue this argument at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong or wherever it is this discussion is sure to be more relevant. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Burj Dubai topped out?

Comment moved to Talk:Burj Dubai#Final height. This is relevant to the ongoing discussion there. --timsdad ^(talk) 05:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Burj Dubai to be added to completed list?

I just thought I'd bring to attention something others may be wondering along with me; there are topped out buildings in the main top 200 list (i.e. Nanjing Greenland Financial Center, Guangzhou International Finance Center and Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)) but Burj Dubai isn't. Shouldn't we be adding it to the list, or are we still not sure if it's topped-out or not? --timsdad ^(talk) 02:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Tallest buildings labelled map

I've created a map with the top ten completed and topped-out buildings which you can find here. Burj Dubai is included as it is topped-out, as the other three in the top ten are in the main list (see above discussion). The map is similar to what was in the lead section of List of tallest buildings in the United States for quite some time, until it was changed to a map with the cities containing buildings over 700 feet (see here). I tried previewing my map in this article (to try it yourself, copy the syntax from my maps subpage and change the top line part: float={{{float|left}}} to {{{float|right}}}) but it is quite wide and condenses the lead section text to a very small size, not to mention on smaller screens it will totally mess up the formatting. Does this map have any place in the article? --timsdad ^(talk) 02:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have any opinions on this or should I just be bold and add it, then wait for the reaction? --timsdad ^(talk) 07:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sky tower, Auckland

Auckland's sky tower seems to have been left off the lists. It is 328m tall.

The Sky Tower, along with other concrete towers such as the CN Tower and Calgary Tower are considered to be towers, not buildings. Buildings are continuously habitable structures, whereas towers are either non-accessible, or only for maitenence. I hope this clears that up for you. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

sears tower got mixed up?

i think the sears tower info got mixed up -- in the "architectural detail" list its height is 442m, while in the "roof" table its height is 527m... 58.246.143.121 (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, it is correct for it to be listed as 442 m in the "architectural detail" list as antennas are not counted, so the roof height is used instead. However, as the roof height is obviously 442 m, this should have been used in the "roof height" list. Thanks again, timsdad ^(talk) 09:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April 22 2009 trim

I will remove some less notable or unsourced building from the list and put them here. Feelfree to discuss. I have rough criteria in mind, but typing them would be too long. Circeus 12:01, April 22, 2009 (UTC) The building is missing from the copied elements.

Name	Planned pinnacle height	Planned roof height	Floors	Completed	Country	City	Remarks
New Abenobashi Terminal Tower	310 metres (1,017 ft)	310 metres (1,017 ft)	59	2014	Japan	Osaka

Not sure I know exactly what you're doing here. That building (although it's probably a structure and doesn't belong in this article) was never in the under construction list. Are you removing buildings from that list, or adding them? --timsdad ^(talk) 12:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nakheel Tower

I have added Nakheel Tower in a list regarding On-Hold skyscrapers.Because the construction of this tower was halted due to lack of finances, the status is currently on-hold. construction will resume in 2010.

Colossal (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ref for every building

I recently did a fix of the refs in this article, and I ended up removing most of them. I only removed the ones specifically for certain buildings - only nine of the buildings in the list of 200 had a ref or two (an emporis or skyscraperpage entry, or skyscraper city forum). I feel that either none of the buildings have references, or they all do, such as in other tallest building articles (e.g. List of tallest buildings in the United States, List of tallest buildings in Australia...)

I definitely think each of the buildings in the under-construction section should have both an emporis and a skyscraperpage reference, and each in the on-hold section should have an emporis reference and at least one recent news article. What do we think? --timsdad ^(talk) 11:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Buildings taller than 400 meters

I am adding the section under the heading See also.. it is List of Buildings taller than 400 m

Colossal (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this article really notable at all? List of tallest buildings in the world contains all the information in that article already... If it was to continue to exist, it should at least be renamed List of buildings taller than 400 metres. --timsdad ^(talk) 10:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But this article will ease readers to find which towers are taller than 400 meters, and as well as the it will ease them to find in future which buildings will be taller than 400 meters... I think i am right at my point because Wikipedia doesnt have an article which clearly identifies the list of buildings taller than 400m..

Colossal (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think so. There aren't enough buildings taller than 400 metres to merit their own article. Anyone really wanting to see them can look at the very top of the lists in this article. Can we get some other opinions here, please? --timsdad ^(talk) 08:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok you are fine with your comments but currently there are 12 skyscrapers taller than 400 meters and in near future this number is expected to rise to over 30 buildings. So there are enough buildings to creat this article. Apart from this there are alot of skyscrapers which are in planning stages and said to rise over 400 meters.I will opose to your comment "there aren't enough buildings taller than 400 m to create the article"...........................................

Colossal (talk) 11:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point, however I would still like to hear others' opinions on this. --timsdad ^(talk) 11:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

119.237.139.18 edits

In this IP's first edits changing the Taiwan and Macau occurrences to Republic of China, etc. I left edit summaries kindly asking them to discuss the matter first before continuing to make the edits. After getting into some discussions on the IP's talk page, they continued to make the edits and claiming, in this edit that the edits aren't controversial. Obviously, if even one editor feels they need to be discussed first, they are controversial.

I tried to make it clear that, in my opinion anyway, if this person feels the edits they are making are necessary, and I think they should be discussed first, that they have the responsibility to start up the discussion, not me.

I haven't reverted the most recent edits on this particular article because they've told me to "bring it to the talk page" and to "stop reverting". IP, now that I've brought it to the talk page because you "don't think you have the burden" to do so, please begin discussing your reasons for your edits. --timsdad ^(talk) 10:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No I did not change Macau to Republic of China. Please understand what you were reverting with before you deem some changes as controversial and revert them. Obviously it was you who thought the changes I've made are controversial, and naturally you should be the person to bring the matter here. 10:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.139.18 (talk)

Okay well can you please explain exactly what your changes were and why they were necessary, as you left no edit summaries explaining what you did in the edits (which is what edit summaries are for). --timsdad ^(talk) 10:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright. If I have left something as "edit summary", it would have been "(Flag) [[Republic of China|Taiwan]] → (Flag) [[Republic of China|Taiwan]] (Republic of China)". 11:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is because {{flag|Taiwan}} already links to Republic of China for obvious reason. The name of the country.. or perhaps polity, is Republic of China, and it's known commonly as Taiwan. Yet Taiwan makes up only 98% of the Republic of China. It is not the entirety of the Republic of China. It's like calling the United Kingdom Great Britain, disregarding Northern Ireland. Are we going to change all entries of the UK on this list to "Great Britain", disregarding "United Kingdom"? 11:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the changes around Macau to List of towers, it was because Macau is somehow a dependent territory. It is treated as a country on other Wikipedia lists as with other dependent territories. 11:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I also understand your unexplained reasons for changing {{flag|China}} to {{flag|People's Republic of China}} to distinguish it from the ROC. However, I believe the flag is enough for this, and it is Wikipedia standard (see the country data template) to display it as simply "China" with the {{flag|China}} template. --timsdad ^(talk) 12:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Tallest

From the caption on the list's front page:

Taipei 101, the world's tallest completed building, is located in Taipei, Republic of China (Taiwan)

Technically this isn't true anymore because of the completion of the building in Dubai.bttfvgo (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Burj Dubai has only been topped-out, which means it has reached its final height, but is not actually completed. That's why the sentence specifically states "tallest completed building". --timsdad ^(talk) 08:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings by year?

Is there such a list on Wikipedia? Shouldn't there be one? like "from 1869-1888, this building was the tallest in the world", etc... -- megA (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a history section in the List of tallest buildings and structures in the world, however, this is for both buildings and structures. Is this similar to what you are suggesting, but obviously just for buildings? --timsdad ^(talk) 07:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes! That's exactly what I meant. Thank you for pointing me to it, although it's of course a different thing from a list of buildings... actually, it seems to me the only difference is the inclusion of the Pyramids, the Washington Monument, and the Eiffel Tower. Maybe this could change the field in those years. -- megA (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Oriental Pearl Tower (dongfangmingzhu)

Shouldn't the Oriental Pearl Tower in Shanghai be on this list? It's 1,535 feet tall, at least according to the wikipedia article. (there seems to be some argument to this point since some of that is made by the spire) The article for the tower itself is also erratic about how it stacks up in the tallest towers in the world. You might want to check it out.