This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Why would we decrease it? NYC list is at 650ft/200m, so 700 for the entire country seems too low, even 750/230 is not really that tall when the entire country is considered. 81.177.27.61 (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The cutoff actually was 700 feet on an older version of this article. It was changed to 800 feet in a revision dated 12 May 2021 by an unregistered user and the new cutoff seems to have stuck. Personally I'm in favor of this list being more inclusive than exclusive. There are not that many buildings between 700 and 800 feet, so the list wouldn't have to be too much longer. Freehuggs21 (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weakly oppose, maybe 750 ft could be justified, but 700 ft is no longer tall enough to be significant in terms of height when talking about skyscrapers in the United States. 71.62.176.24 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This quite deliberately uses 500 ft as the cutoff as MOS:NUM directs the primary use of United States customary units here. There may be a case for raising the value to 600 ft, or even 800 ft to match the main table, but changing to 492 ft is a poor decision, especially as the purpose appears to be that of getting certain cities higher on the list.
Another thing to be mindful of is that it is necessary when changing a columns value to update all entries in the column, not just those of one preferred entry. In this case many of those swings would be quite large, and the result of simply relabeling was to degrade the accuracy of the material. 2603:7000:8B00:2B01:595F:7721:364E:D509 (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re breaking rules here. In the U.S we go off https://www.ctbuh.org/ rankings and what they classify as a skyscraper, since they make up the rules in the skyscraper world. 150 Meters translates to 492 feet, so it’s not “getting cities higher” on a list. It’s just factually correct. The misinformation on your page isn’t only about San Francisco. Austin is also incorrect. I will continue to keep changing it to the CORRECT ranking. Which is 492 feet not 500, and I will make sure to spread the word via social media for you guys to take accountability for speeding false information and falsifying records for possible self satisfaction on your own city to have a higher ranking. This has never been an issue and must be addressed correctly. 2603:9008:1200:27F9:9DDE:E197:D561:FDC1 (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finally engaging on this page.
First things first, assuming you are not a vandal, robo-reverts to any changes that are not your own have caused the table to be factually inaccurate when you try to use 492. As just one example, you would need to allow New York to move from 302 to 317. Many others would also have to be adjusted accordingly.
Secondly Wikipedia does not go off of any one definition. Indeed there is no single definition for a skyscrpaper, Emporis for example used 100 meters. It is true that the CTBUH values are widely repeated in reference, but that does not make them the only standard. As just one example List of tallest buildings in San Francisco does not use it.
Ultimately these cutoffs are set by page consensus, and actually this page mostly uses 800 ft. Now it could be 555 ft or 553 ft. And in the end there is nothing that prevents column seperations of 108 ft starting at 461 ft or 143 ft starting at 339 ft but you do need to gain consensus for that change, bearing in mind MOS:NUM. But the page was accurate in its ranking of cities by number of buildings over 500 ft until you started to mess around with it and robo-revert anyone who wasn't you. 2603:7000:8B00:2B01:E4A8:4D80:60D7:D855 (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now I feel silly for trying to WP:AGF, but yeah the number for NYC at 492 would be 316 or 317, depending on the precise definition of complete, but now you tried to change it to 348. I know you think this kind of subtle trolling makes you clever, but it doesn't. 2603:7000:8B00:2B01:E4A8:4D80:60D7:D855 (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers for Boston add up to 22, but the figure in the last column says 25. The references for most of the figures in this list lead to CTBUH pages which we can't verify unless we are members. Not sure what this business with 492 vs 500ft is, but as it stands, the ranking is incorrect for the given headings. Perplexion (talk) 06:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well in fact you can for cities with < 25, because top 25 ratings are still available for free to non-members see [1], you might consider asking someone with member access to e-mail you full copies of the webpages. Anyway it was most likely some unreverted change from a previous dust-up or confusion, but I will make the necessary adjustment, since 500 ft is 152.4 m, 600 ft is 182.9 m, and 700 ft is 213.4 m.
