Talk:List of buildings with 100 floors or more

message: Is the bottom of the page supposed to be listing only builings under construction? Many of these skyscrapers are still only proprosed, and the others are approved, but not under construction. Should they therefore be listed under this category? Raime 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it will be better to include buildings really under constructions. Many approved or under preparation buildings will be never build. Anyone oppose ?--Jklamo 13:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's fine, but we should keep towers that are "In preperation", only because they won't stop once they get the ball rolling...at least I don't think they would. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 15:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under Construction vs. Approved 

message: What evidence is there that the Noida Tower is under construction? It is still considered to only to a "Vision" on Emporis, and unless a reliable article can be cited, it should certainly not be listed as "under construction", or even be on this page for the time being. Raime 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noida Tower 

message: Wikipedia is a democracy and changes should be based on general consensus. There seems to be a debate over the placement of unfinished buildings in the first catagory. My intent of the first catagory was to list buildings which have poured or erected 100 floors whether they are done or not. I think the confusion has arised over the title 'completed buildings.' I feel that the title should actually be changed to include the definition of Burj Dubai. The second one exists to show which buildings are imminently (over the next few years) ready to appear in the first catagory.     mKleid 20:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then maybe you shouldn't have Burj Dubai in *both* tables. --Golbez 02:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree; it seems to me like this is a Burj Dubai marketing page-in-disguise if placed in both.  It's almost like you want to push the fact that it's tall and getting taller.  We all know it, so it doesn't need to be in both; pick one and stay with it.  Since it's not done, I feel it needs to stay in "Under Construction".  I don't know why you said there's confusion; there is none.  A finished building, from my understanding, could be one of three ideas: 1.) it's topped out, 2.) habitable, or 3.) has all the siding/walls in place.  The Burj doesn't meet any of those, and before you take issue with my criteria, the Ruyenyong (sp?) Hotel's got at least one of them (topped out).  So, until it, at the very least, tops out, I see absolutely no reason for a dupe placement...but hey, that's just my opinion. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 15:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  *Burj Dubai placement debate* 

message: Even though the top floor will be numbered 102, the actual floor count is 82 (the numbering's starting at 20).  With that said, does that even make it eligible for this list?  What parameters are we gonna set for this?  I, for one, think the Freedom Tower needs to go; if the BoA Tower started its numbering at 80, it too could have one of the top spots on this list...even at a whopping 386ft! EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter what, it shouldn't be 102; it is either 108 (counting unoccupied floors in the podium and above the observation deck) or 82 (counting only the occupied floors). Do such 'unoccupied floors' count on other buildings? If not, then the Freedom Tower is not eligible. But if they do, it is. Raime 21:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter how many floors you think it has, it is what reliable sources says that matters.  At the moment, most reliable sources are saying it is 104 floors - the exception is the usually very reliable CTBUH !!!  It has been reverted, for now, but let's wait until the officially building opens and the CTBUH weighs in with the official figures.  Once that happens, I'm sure the other sources will fall into line to settle on one figure for the number of floors.  Astronaut (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Freedom Tower]] validity 

message: Was I just brain-dead for about 4 days, or was there absolutely no talk or discussion about even suggesting merging this article in with the List of Tallest???  I know it was briefly mentioned (by myself, in fact) about 3 months ago, but this isn't just one of those be bold things that everyone's talking about, you know!  Something like this takes planning and cooperation on all accounts; hell, if I just merged every article I saw that could be integrated with another, I'd be banned from ever using this site for all the merges!  If no one objects, I'm moving it back to its own article until we can get a concensus of whether to move it or not.  You've got 72 hours from this point to make your case. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 12:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the thing about concensus: it's not as though I'm saying every single minute detail needs to be straw-polled before editing.  I agree; nothing would ever get done.  However, moving a page entirely on a whim or because you see a reason to move it isn't acceptible.  It's more detremental to the project, even if it was in good faith.  This is one of the very reasons we have discussion and appropriate concensus to begin with.  Personally, I feel it merits being merged as well.  However, if I did that back in December like I wanted to, I would have either been warned for being a "troll" or worse.  While Wikipedia's not a democracy, it's only fair to give people who work long and hard on something to have a say before someone goes and makes their article disappear.  So, why don't we have a vote right here and now as to whether this article should stay merged or if it should be a seperate list?  I'll start off.... EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 22:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I split article back, merging article without a single word in discussion section is unacceptable. --Jklamo 23:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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. 
The result of the debate was against merging lists. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 12:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Whoa!!!  What the hell's going on?!?

message: Please vote either Support or Against as to merge this article with List of tallest buildings in the world
Support means merge it,
Against means leave as-is.
*Support, while I don't agree at all with his methods, Jorfer was right in merging these lists.  It appears whomever set it up in the first place intended it to be some sort of cloaked marketing campaign for the Burj Dubai, as he wanted it in both the "Completed" and "Under construction" sections, which would defeat the purpose of this list anyway.  As a subsection of this current list would suffice the people interested in knowing what towers are 100+ stories, but it might be wise if we're to keep this list at all if we include only true 100+ story buildings, unlike the Freedom Tower, which is only 88 stories; however, since the 1st floor's labeled "20", it has it's top floor numerically labeled "108", technically allowing it onto this list.  So, in spite all my ranting and raving, I agree it should be here on this new merged list...just check with people next time you make major changes like this, Jorfer, please? EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 22:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this information should be more visible and not on a more obscure page where few will go out of their way to find it and edit it. I would not describe the tallest building page as unwieldy. It is 38 KB and 55 KB is what is necessary for the Long warning. If I am going to print out the list of tallest buildings it would be nice to have the buildings organized by floor on the same page. Wikipedia is about collaboration, but the more separate pages, the less collaboration.--Jorfer 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article merge vote

message: What does C and P mean for floors? JustN5:12 21:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Completed to date and Proposed in the most recent design. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 01:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That should be written somewhere in the article, if not on the table itself. 218.186.9.1 06:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Floors? 

message: I just reformated table little bit and made some concept changes.
1) i added Burj to first table, because it actually has 100+ floors and its completed floors are comparable to Ryugyong Hotel status. To reflect better status of first table, i deleted completed building headline (because now that means completed floors).
2) i deleted ranks, because number of building is still low and also we need not discuss about ranks of UC, destroyed or unfinished.
If someone oppose first or second change, please write it down. If there will be consensus against them, i will revert these changes. --Jklamo 02:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because no one objected doesn't make it right.  If I'd have seen this sooner, than I would have objected then.  I objected in the thread above and I object here!  The section is called "Under construction" for a reason.  If we allow both under construction and completed lists to have the same ones, then what's the point of having two lists?  I've been saying, and I'll continue to say, you have an agenda by trying to push the Burj Dubai.  Yes, it will be the tallest, and yes it will most likely be completed, but we don't know for certain; something unforeseen could happen tomorrow and the project could abruptly end.  Until it's complete, CTBUH refuses to acknowledge it and I agree it should be refused until the ribbon is cut and we know 100% for certain that people will call the Burj Dubai home.  Same goes for the Shanghai International Commerce Tower; no exceptions should be make until they are completed, esp w/Shanghai, seeing as that project has been jinxed since the beginning.  So, I'm going to be bold and revert the changes...I hope this doesn't turn into an edit war. EaglesFanInTampa 22:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  concept changes 

message: I'm pretty sure that is still only proposed, not under construction. Unless someone disagrees, I'll remove it from the list. Raime 06:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. It is approved, but still not UC, despite some activities on plot.It is like Chicage Spire. We will see which one will start first. --Jklamo 11:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia Tower 

message: I am for including Shanghai World Financial Center in a first table. Building is topped out and it is comparable to Ryugyong Hotel status. Share your opinions --Jklamo 03:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If topped out, that's fine, since all other topped out buildings are listed on the main List of tallest buildings in the world...and thanks for asking this time ;-) EaglesFanInTampa 11:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shanghai World Financial Center 

message: "Standing" is an odd word to use (highly post 9/11 referential). How about "completed". Therefore assuming if not destroyed/demolition it is indeed standing. Artlondon 18:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status 

message: should this not be a list of buildings as stand (ie not destroyed/in construction). Say, a list of wealthiest people/countries would be at a given time not estimated. Or, the number of deaths in an armed conflict. Artlondon (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I do not think so.  The list is used to show any building in history that had more than 100 floors.  Would a list of tallest buildings in the world not include the World Trade Center just because they are no longer standing?  Since they held a record for a short time, they are mentioned.  That is the same for this article.  Having more than 100 floors is an interesting fact, in my opinion, even if the building no longer stands or is not yet complete.  Would a list of the world's fastest runners only include records that were made in the past few years?  I do not think so.  Maybe, this list will need to change when more and more buildings have 100+ floors.  But until then, I think the list's format is okay.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This list of buildings contains all buildings with 100 floors and more 

message: The image :File:Shanghai Center Dragon.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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Shanghai Center Dragon.jpg

message: Does this need to be changed? Sears Tower was known as the Sears Tower until very recently in 2009 (March), the same year as when the Burj Dubai will open (in December). It's been known as the Sears Tower for most of its span as the tallest tower, so does this need to be decided?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tk TommyKim (talk • contribs) 06:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been discussed at great lengths on Talk:Willis Tower and at various WikiProjects. It was decided that the name Willis Tower will be displayed almost everywhere - an exception being, for example, places where a record is said to be broken on the completion of the Sears Tower. Here, however, it should be Willis Tower, as this is simply its name. --timsdad  (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of this, in one list on the page the number of floors are given as 108, and in another, it's given as 110. Perhaps the note from the Willis Tower article needs to be duplicated here to explain the discrepancy? (i.e. 108 actual floors, but the owners have always counted two "extra" in order to say '110'). --JohnDBuell (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sears Tower / Willis Tower

message: Can we get a better main photo than what is there now? It's pathetic quality photo (out of focus or blury due to motion, dust on the sensor, noisy sky). I am sure there are better photos of the building than this pathetic quality 98.156.84.149 (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Better Photos

message: Alright, people have been editing back and forth on this issue for a bit now, but there's been no discussion about it.  What are the pros and cons of including the erection progress as indicated by # of floors completed,of towers under construction in this list? What was the original justification for including it on this list, when as far as I'm aware, no other list of buildings includes that information?Scalzi+ | (Talk | contribs) 16:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I guess the main problem is that it needs to be sourced. Where did you get the height updates from, anyway? --timsdad  (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Construction Progress

message: Where is Pingan International Finance Centre on the construction list?? --Extra999 (Contact me) 17:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pingan International Finance Centre - Forgotten 

message: Canton Tower's article says it is an observation tower but its infobox states it has 108 floors. To list or not? 85.217.36.71 (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not list.  First of all it is a tower, not a skyscraper - it is correctly listed on List of tallest towers in the world.  Secondly, there are not 108 floors.  I've no idea who added that, but the CTBUH (a reliable source) says just 37 floors.  I've corrected the Canton Tower article.  Astronaut (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canton Tower 

message: I have spent some time reworking the under construction list using the list creation tool at the CTBUH's database: http://skyscrapercenter.com/  The CTBUH is generally acknowledged to be a reliable source when it comes to skyscrapers.  I also created a second list of those buildings which started construction but will now never be completed dues to various factors.  I felt this was a useful distinction to make.
In doing this, I came across the JW Marriott International Finance Centre.  The building has been revised multiple times, the latest plan seemingly with 102 floors.  The CTBUH lists it as on-hold and Emporis (another reliable source) has a lower version of the project on-hold.  However, I find some confusing reports that either: a previous 8-storey building was demolished to make way for this project, or that a previous version of this project was demolished to make way for a newer version, or that the current version of this project has been demolished and they have given up completely. Unfortunately, I don't read Chinese, so I have to rely on a Google translation of this news item.  For now, I have not listed it, but would like to when I can find out what is going on.  Maybe someone who reads Chinese can help me to understand the source better.  Astronaut (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworked under construction list 

message: Seems very relevant. Anybody can put a student on this or make it an evening project? Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The more usual term is "Floor area" and we tend to use the  template to include the necessary detail.  However, I have reverted your change, because I really don't think it is "very relevant" to this list.  Each building in the list is wikilinked to an article.  Astronaut (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Column m2 of floorsurface ? 

message: There are three new American buildings listed in this section which I do not think should be listed:  the Old Main Post Office and the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel and Residences in Chicago, and the Peachtree in Atlanta.  This section of the article was designed to include only buildings FOR WHICH CONSTRUCTION BEGAN, not buildings that were approved and later abandoned.  Will someone remove the three buildings?Amyzex (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buildings cancelled list 

message: Shouldn't Central Park Tower be on this list?  Like One World Trade Center its top floor is numbered over 100 despite the fact it will actually have less than 100 floors.Amyzex (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central Park Tower 

message: Why do we have a list of buildings with 100 Floors or more? 156.34.79.134 (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of buildings with 100 Floors or more? 

message: Building in the future 1st is nothing I'm tired by 86.3.255.238 (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Building in the future 

message: Only the world's List of tallest buildings article is respectably accurate when it comes to floor counts. Buildings like the Wanda Vista Tower (St. Regis Chicago) have about 90 floors, not 100 or 101. Also the Ryugyong Hotel clearly has less than 100/105 floors. Construction shell photos, as it stood uncompleted for many years, show that it might not even have 90 floors. The glazing has more than one expansion joint, where the windows split, per floor, as do some other buildings giving an illusion of more floors as well. This is the same but opposite trick Las Vegas did to make one of their buildings look smaller, with two storey windows. There's a few dozen buildings at least with highly inflated floor counts, skipping over 10 floors in some cases, mostly supertalls. B137 (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only [[List of tallest buildings]] and [[List of tallest buildings in New York City|tallest NYC]] have real floor counts 

message: What about Rise Tower with its 678 floors? - Shiftchange (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: lol another vision project. It would take at least a decade to build any of these from scratch, unless Broad Sustainable Building can prove their proposed Sky City modular prefab system. Even the Kingdom Tower would need a good five more years to complete, if construction resumed. Greater than a mile high, that's likely too much of an engineering jump at once. Burj Khalifa is only a half mile high , and will likely continue to hold the records for all of thise decade if not forever. B137 (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rise Tower