![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
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 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)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Max ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.143.221.217 ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
What's up with the sections Selected high buildings and Observation towers and other structures? Seem pretty random to me - especially in an article titled List of skyscrapers. Either add an explanation of the selection criteria or delete, I'd say -- Silvestre Zabala 09:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adaspe ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't Freedom Tower be listed here? -- Brianhe 06:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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. — Insta ntnood 22:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Who says that we have to do this with every building out there? -- KCMODevin 20:46, 17 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)
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. — Insta ntnood 20:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
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? Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 14:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
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).
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? Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 18:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Concensus was 'against merging -- Jklamo 16:21, 30 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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
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 Talk Review me 23:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
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 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)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Max ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.143.221.217 ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
What's up with the sections Selected high buildings and Observation towers and other structures? Seem pretty random to me - especially in an article titled List of skyscrapers. Either add an explanation of the selection criteria or delete, I'd say -- Silvestre Zabala 09:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adaspe ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't Freedom Tower be listed here? -- Brianhe 06:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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. — Insta ntnood 22:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Who says that we have to do this with every building out there? -- KCMODevin 20:46, 17 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)
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. — Insta ntnood 20:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
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? Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 14:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
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).
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? Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 18:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Concensus was 'against merging -- Jklamo 16:21, 30 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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
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 Talk Review me 23:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |