Template talk:Supertall proposed skyscrapers

Skyscrapers Template‑class

This template 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 articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

proposed buildings can't have been 300 meters tall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.186.234 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should Somebody add taltin's tower to this template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.46.255 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this building in the 'cancelled' section? It has never been officially cancelled, it even has been built and reached almost its proposed height. Officially, construction is just on hold. I wonder whether it should appear in this box at all. -- H005 07:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a template in the see also section seems kind of weird. Is there a better way to get the information across? --OGoncho (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know if there is any other criterion to consider a building a "vision" rather than being labeled as such in its official website (http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Projects/0504/Default.aspx). Meanwhile, I took the liberty to add it.Theodopulus (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who removed it? I think it will be a supertall! --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 19:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've readded it. Remember that "supertall" is classified in this case by being over 300 metres. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know! Don't remind me! Anyway it might not be a supertall because it has only 70 / 77 floors! --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 19:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you did know that then you would know that the amount of floors makes no difference. This discussion is going nowhere, please don't reply. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-_- ITS A VISION not PROPOSED.. --98.185.24.220 (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about “De Nederlandse Berg”? --84.61.156.142 (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the proposed buildings in the "Never realized" group are very much fantasy or high concept ideas for buildings rather than any serious or plausible project. Sometimes they don't even have a site. For example, X-Seed 4000, Vortex Tower, and Shimizu Mega-City Pyramid are clearly in that category. In contrast, Twin Towers 2, Chicago Spire and Dream Tower had fully formed plans and actual locations. Interestingly enough, as I'm writing this I've noticed that Millennium Tower (Tokyo) has been given the status in its infobox as "Visionary". That seems like a really good description of some of these concepts as opposed to "Never realized". Maybe we should create that as new sub-group? Seaweed (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Never realized" category is redundant with the "cancelled/stale proposal" category already. However, there is a difference between, say, Hermitage Plaza and X-Seed 4000 in terms of how far they got before cancellation, so there should be a distinction. I think a "Visions" category would be a good idea for the towers that were never funded or seriously considered. However, some cases would be difficult to sort in the right category, but at least it would be an improvement of the current system. Codraroll (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]