Jump to content

Talk:List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of tallest buildings in Hong Kong is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on July 18, 2016.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 26, 2008Featured list candidatePromoted

Merging

[edit]

Go ahead with the merge. --Siipikarja 17:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues

[edit]

I put a "citation needed" tag on the following sentence:

  • The 484 metre-tall (1,588 ft) International Commerce Centre is expected to become the tallest building in Hong Kong when it is completed in 2010. It will mark the first time in more than 70 years that a building on the Kowloon side of Victoria Harbour holds the distinction.

Also, the following sentence is not actually backed up by the footnote that follows it:

  • More than half of the buildings taller than 183 metres (600 ft) were completed after 2000, as a result of a construction boom.

We might need a new source for this.

About units of measurement. Since HK uses the metric system, metric units should be used primarily. According to WP:DATE, we should spell out the metric unit, and then abbreviate the conversion unit, like so:

  • 100 millimetres (4 in)

There's also too many images in the "Tallest buildings" section. In some screen resolutions, it creates white spaces at the bottom of the list itself. When I have a little more time, I'm going to create a gallery in Commons and link it to the article, then take out some of the images in the article itself. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I commented out the sentence It will mark the first time in more than 70 years that a building on the Kowloon side of Victoria Harbour holds the distinction. I went on a quick search and found nothing referencing the statement.
 Done More than half of the buildings taller than 183 metres (600 ft) were completed after 2000, as a result of a construction boom. changed to what the reference actually says - 43 buildings taller than 200 metres completed after 2000. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 19:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I know I said I would create a Commons gallery for Hong Kong skyscrapers, but there are simply too many pictures of Hong Kong skyscrapers on Commons. So I just linked the article to the Commons category for Hong Kong skyscrapers.[1] I would suggest that we keep the number of images in the "Tallest buildings" section to a maximum of four though. Let me know if you agree. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think pictures of the top four supertalls in Hong Kong would do. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 23:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that at least one more picture would be appropriate; with only four, there is a huge amount of white space. I also think that Image:Boc&box.jpg should be used in place of Image:Bank of China Tower daytime.jpg to illustrate two very famous buildings. Rai-me 22:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done changed image. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 04:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other ideas

[edit]

This list looks great, and will without a doubt soon be ready for FLC. I just have a few ideas:

  • List of tallest buildings in the world only needs to be linked once.
  • Lead could be expanded slightly.
  • Why are under construction and approved buildings in one section? I think the 3 approved buildings could stand alone, but if anything its fits more with "Proposed" than "Under construction".
  • Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use 180 m rather than 183 m?
  • The list ranks the tallest building as number one. - Is this needed? The same goes for ...and also listed is the building's height, the number of floors it contains, and the year it was built. I don't think that these needs to be stated. Rai-me 22:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have experience with Featured Lists. Do you mind answering this question I posted at the Featured List Criteria talk page[2]? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on this matter is that the tallest existing skyscrapers in a city are notable, but there is clearly no consensus on this matter. All of the building lists I have nominated have met opposition if any existing building on the list did not have an article, but at the same time some created articles were speedied or brought to AfD. I think that for this Hong Kong list to pass, all existing articles would need articles. The newly created Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Articles generally warrants the craetion of an article for every entry of a FLC per Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Articles#Article creation criterion 2. Rai-me 02:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That might present a problem. Some of these buildings might just not be notable enough to have their own articles. But is this an official FLC requirement? Or is it just some unofficial rule set by WikiProject Skyscrapers? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The official requirement per WP:WIAFL is that the list brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria. It is usually not a requiremnt that all entries have articles in all fetaured lists, but so far for building list users have opposed unless they are created. The fact about 20% of the buildings in List of tallest buildings in San Francisco did not have articles nearly caused the list to fail. Rai-me 03:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-off at 180 m rather than 183 m

[edit]

Concerning User:Raime's suggestion for the minimum height cut-off for the list - changing the cut-off from 183 m to 180 m would actually add 11 more buildings to the list[3]. So how about one of these options:

  1. Diverge from the other tallest buildings list and cut off at the top 50 or top 60 tallest buildings instead of using a minimum height cut-off.
  2. Lower the minimum height cut-off to 175 m or 170 m.

Let me know what you think. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think that we need to use a height cut-off; List of tallest buildings in Boston received opposition for not having a cut-off when it was nominated at FLC. 180, 175, or 170 m all seem great. I would probably go for 170, as at FLC, the more comprehensive the better. The normal cut-off for the average building list would be 150 m ~ 500 ft, but I think that Hong Kong has too many skyscrapers to go down that far. Rai-me 02:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I wrote this wrong. I wanted to suggest we raise the minimum height cut-off, maybe to 185 or 190. Meaning we would delete some of the buildings at bottom of the current list. This would still leave us with a list that's much longer than some of the other tallest buildings lists that have become FLs. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should keep the list as comprehensive as possible. List of tallest buildings in New York City, which currently has a cut-off at 600 ft, will probably soon have to go down to 500 ft in order to remain consistent with other United States building lists, meaning roughly 200 entries. Keeping this list at 180 m (or even going lower) seems fine to me, but I don't think removing buildings is a great idea. The reason this list is so much longer than others is simply because all of the other FLs are cities with much smaller skylines. If and when the New York, Dubai, Chicago, and Shanghai lists become featured, then this list will not seem as overly long. Rai-me 02:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images?

[edit]

Does anyone else think that we should add a few more images of famous buildings? Four is a very small number for such a long list. Also, I think that we can find a better Center image - perhaps we should use Image:HK Peak The Center West Kln COSCO Tower.JPG or Image:The Center and One IFC seen from Two IFC.JPG (which, again, shows two very famous buildings) in the current image's place? Any comments? Rai-me 04:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Tallest buildings" section used to have eight images and that was causing a lot of white space at the bottom of the list on higher screen resolutions. I don't know what resolution you have right now, but at the higher resolutions each row in that table would basically take up one line instead of two lines, and that'll shrink the table to half the size it looks at lower resolutions. But if you do not think this will be a problem for the FL nomination, then I think we can definitely add some pictures back in. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere from four to six would be alright. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 04:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy between the two main sources

[edit]

I've updated the list of existing buildings to 180 m. But there seems to be discrepancies between emporis.com and skyscraperpage.com in regards to Revenue Tower and Immigration Tower. emporis.com lists them both at 181 m and skyscraperpage.com lists them at 177 m. Which one should we go with? I haven't added these two yet. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a discrepancy between One Exchange Square and Two Exchange square as well (each building appears twice on the list). One pair needs to be removed from the list. When in doubt, we usually go with Emporis. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 19:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. If a height cannot be found on the developer's website or the official building website, just go with the one listed on Emporis, and do not include a SkyscraperPage reference for the entry. And, in following this, I have removed the second pair of One and Two Exchange Square from the list, as they were based on lower heights from SkyscraperPage. Rai-me 20:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Belcher's, and Hong Kong building stubs?

[edit]

Ok, I've just created The Belcher's. Please improve as anybody sees fit. I want to ask though, do we have enough stub articles that are for buildings in Hong Kong to justify creating a stub template/category especially for buildings in Hong Kong? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is FL really attainable?

[edit]

Just a quick glance at the article, I see almost 30 articles that need to be created for the red-links, and I have to think that a number of them are probably not notable. These are not like buildings in New York City which are older and have history. Many of these buildings aren't even 10 years old. So my question is, with the current FL requirement that there be no red-links, is FL really attainable for this list? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be attainable. A quick glance at the List of tallest buildings in Dubai shows that their oldest tallest building is only 8 years old - built in 1999. Hong Kong's skyline has considerably older buildings than Dubai's which is currently undergoing a construction boom. Luke! 02:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chimneys and bridge towers

[edit]

Should they be included in this list? Umofomo (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of tallest bridges in the world which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should we remove the 'Notable Buildings' section entirely?

[edit]

The word 'notable' is quite subjective at the first place and all the information under that heading are largely present in the buildings' corresponding articles. Wishva de Silva (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Tallest HK" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tallest HK. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 16#Tallest HK until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 01:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Hong_Kong&oldid=1208304011"