Talk:Tower

message: If skyscrapers aren't considered to be towers, why was the World Trade Center also known as the Twin Towers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.66 (talk) 11:35, July 7, 2004 (UTC)
:Skyscrapers notwithstanding, I am more use to considering a tower as being part of a structure, rather than an entire structure. Especially in castle and mock-castle architecture. Perhaps it needs a separate topic. Or perhaps I'll write one. Notinasnaid 14:31, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: I don't think the statement "however the main concept of towers is to save surface area. " can stand without changes. This argument would never have been applied until the 20th century: before then towers were build for security, piety or ostentation. Even in the 20th century this can only really be applied to tower blocks, not to the many other kinds of tower that continue to be built. And high rise housing frequently achieves a lower population density per surface area because of green space requirements. But there seems some controversy so before deleting this sentence, I will invite comments... Notinasnaid 10:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No comments? I will delete/rewrite as appropriate. Notinasnaid 09:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface area 

message: B class article per ores https://ores.wmflabs.org/v2/scores/enwiki/wp10/803087384 Brock-brac (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  assesment 

message: Hello User:Robynthehode. Regarding this revert, what is the criteria? The article itself mentions wind turbine towers. Rehman 06:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you're right wind turbines are mentioned. However I have tried over time to keep the definition in the article page consistent with the one used in the List of tallest towers page. There the definiton excludes towers that 'are not designed for public or regular operational access'. Maybe the definition needs an overhaul in the this article and I am happy to discuss further. As it stands though your photo could be included (but may be removed later if the definition is clarified). Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. Yes, I agree the definition/criteria must be amended on this article. This article is titled "Tower", and thus must include the broad spectrum of uses. Trimming essential pieces of information based on what is on another completely different article does not make sense IMHO. Please do revert your revert if you don't mind. If it gets removed again (although unlikely), we can discuss further. Thanks, Rehman 07:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted my revert for now. Added text under 'Functions' section to clarify what is included in this article. Robynthehode (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wind turbine towers 

message: The lead currently states "Towers are specifically distinguished from "buildings" in that they are not built to be habitable but to serve other functions." I dislike this statement, I think it is incorrect and should be removed. I can see a kind of difference, a kind of point that is trying to be inferred but it is not a set in stone definition. Some tall structures are referred to as both buildings and towers. Some clearly residential building are often referred to as towers in common language and official name. Grenfell Tower, Tower blocks in Great Britain, Nina Tower, Central Park Tower plus many many more. I understand there is often a reason to build tall things and they are often not habitable/residential. But some tall things called "towers" are residential and habitable.  Carlwev  14:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In Wikipedia we use the separate definition of 'tower' and 'building' per Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. This has been discussed at length on various article talk pages and the definition in this article is currently a stable one based on the CTBUH definition. Common names for things in Wikpedia aren't necessarily the ones that are used after editorial discussion and support from reliable sources. Just because a structure is called a tower doesn't mean it is a tower according to the definition used in Wikipedia. If you want to make an argument for a change you will need to support that with reliable sources and follow WP:RS, WP:V. If you would like to discuss this further please do, otherwise the terminology will remain. Robynthehode (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This article doesn't cite a source for the definition, the discussion further up the page doesn't seem to have come to a clear conclusion, the link to the definition given in that discussion  is no longer valid, and having looked on the CTBUH website, I find a different definition that contradicts the one given here: "Building vs. Tower: To be considered a building, at least 50 percent of its height must be occupiable. Telecommunications or observation towers that do not meet the 50 percent threshold are not eligible for inclusion on CTBUH’s “Tallest” lists".  Contrary definitions are found at the Oxford Dictionary, which defines "tower" as a type of building: "A tall, narrow building, either free-standing or forming part of a building such as a church or castle" (although their definition of building would exclude some towers: "A structure with a roof and walls, such as a house or factory").  The Wikipedia article for Building matches the dictionary definition.  Given all this, I would say at the very least the article needs to state that there are more than one definition of "tower".  I'm also not convinced that just because the CTBUH excludes towers with less than 50% occupiability from their "tallest buildings" list necessarily means that a tower by definition isn't a building and isn't built to be habitable.  Iapetus (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . I think that your querying the lack of a source for the defintion has some validity and may need changing. However Wikipedia articles on towers, buildings and structures are based on CTBUH criteria for those categories. The reason being it is the most reliable source. They have a specific definition that then accords with how they distinguish between the categories of structure for the purpose of comparing heights. CTBUH is a far more reliable source than a dictionary and Wikipedia although sometimes referencing a dictionary definition should not rely on it, especially when there is a reliable source that is more specific. I also think you have misunderstood the categorisations. Across Wikipedia there is a general category 'Structures' which includes all human made structures that includes guyed structures (radio masts etc), media supported structures (oil rigs) and self supporting structures. The last of these 'self supporting structures' is divided into 'buildings' (over 50% occupiable - skyscrapers etc), 'towers' (less than 50% occupiable); both these being accessible to the public and 'other self supporting structures' (chimneys, bridge pylons). This is a stable categorisation and would need a lot of unpicking with major changes to many articles if the (less than perfect) current categorisations were to be changed. So towers are not buildings according to this current arrangement but they are structures. You can see from the associated CTBUH lists that they divide self supporting structures into these two main categories (they don't deal with guyed structures or non-habitable structures in their categorisation) http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/buildings?list=tallest-towers  . CTBUH has changed its description recently and this has caused issues with the referencing. Happy to see additional reliable sources for the current categories or a suggestion for a different categorisation arrangement but as I said this will require extensive work and prior to that consensus to allow for the changes to be made. Robynthehode (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Towers = Non-habital?