Talk:List of cities with the most skyscrapers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

Sources

Wikipedia articles can only use WP:RS. Doing one's own research to find and count skyscrapers in a city is WP:OR. And Wikipedia itself is not a source (WP:NOTSOURCE). So we have to use CVU (formerly known as CTBUH) unless a better source is provided. Unfortunately. I don't make the rules. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

There was an extensive discussion above and in the archived page about whether we should consider the CTBUH a reliable source for all cities. The consensus was no. And this falls far from what qualifies as OR. Every skyscraper is sourced and accounted for (possibly excepting Tokyo and Bangkok which I tried to reverse previously). LivinAWestLife (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
1. Another Wikipedia page cannot be used as a source and this is what was done.
2. It is of course original research to do your own survey of buildings in a city and record them one by one on Wikipedia and count them. Nothing says that they aren't more buildings elsewhere. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Also, the extensive discussion between basically two people is essentially irrelevant if it's conclusion is to do WP:OR. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
The article itself states the numbers aren't exhaustive for any city and is a minimum count. We use the best source available for the figures which is indeed CTBUH for most cities. Having a discrepancy between the numbers on a Wikipedia page and this one is pretty glaring. There is extensive evidence the CTBUH is missing many buildings that would qualify as skyscrapers, which you would be aware of if you have any interest in them.
I really find it hard to believe counting up numbers in a table constitute original research. If it is, this is one of very few cases where I fully believe the status quo is preferable to following numbers from a single and sometimes erroneous source, per ignore all rules. LivinAWestLife (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
In any case you cannot use another Wikipedia article as a source. And yes, it is original research. If you disagree feel free to start an WP:RFC. Stop reverting. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
So what’s the way forward? Remove all the listings on this page? Because CTBUH is certainly not a “reliable source”. Sawarijoshi (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Yes that's the way forward. Unless you can find a better WP:RS. Wikipedia is not your toy project. It's an encyclopedia.
CTBUH is now CVU. And it is WP:RS: "the CTBUH announces the title of "The World's Tallest Building" and is widely considered to be an authority on the official height of tall buildings"
Compare that to some of the sources used in List of tallest buildings in Mumbai:
This is a joke. None of the above are reliable sources. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
I’m not asking about the other sources. I’m asking about CTBUH. Yes, it is a compilation of buildings. But it is NOT a reliable source. Just like you’ve listed 10 points, I could list you over a hundred buildings which have incorrect heights on CTBUH.
Presenting 10 other links doesn’t make CTBUH a reliable source. Sawarijoshi (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Did you read what I wrote? I repeat:
1. CVU is WP:RS as it is "an authority on the official height of tall buildings"
2. One cannot use another Wikipedia article as a source.
3. Doing one's own census of tall buildings using a variety of sources to reach a conclusion is WP:OR
4. In any case, that other Wikipedia article used as a source (for instance List of tallest buildings in Mumbai) is not using WP:RS.
What matters is WP:RS. The rest is irrelevant. If no RS: ciao. So CVU is the way. Whether we like it or not. Until someone finds a better RS. If you have one please provide it. If not: there's nothing to say. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
My question was very precise – I asked about the reliability of CTBUH as a source. So, I kindly request you to please stick to the topic. Please don’t filibuster by repeating unrelated (to my question) points again and again.
Do I believe CTBUH to be a great compilation of building data? Absolutely.
Do I consider CTBUH to be objectively reliable? Absolutely not.
Since CTBUH is known (by general consensus) to be filled with inaccuracies, I do not consider it to be WP:RS.
In the absence of a single RS which contains a reliable compilation of ALL buildings, it becomes imperative to find individual RSs per building. OR does not state that the entire list needs to refer to a common source. Therefore, I do not agree with your unyielding opinion of “CTBUH or nothing”. Sawarijoshi (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
It is your right to be wrong. If you disagree, feel free to start an WP:RFC. In any case, another Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference and reliable sources are needed. You'll have to solve that problem. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Again, you're simply dodging the question.
Why not actually stay on topic instead of passing banal remarks like "your right to be wrong"? :-) Sawarijoshi (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
What's the question? You didn't ask a question I haven't already answered. If I'm mistaken, please repeat it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Eh? Alright. Here's a summary for your benefit.
  1. CTBUH is a great compilation of building data but is not a reliable source for all buildings. Its database is practically non-existent for cities outside the "west".
  2. WP:OR does not state that all citations in a list must be from a singular source.
  3. When CTBUH has missing/incorrect data, it becomes imperative to find an alternative RS outside of CTBUH.^
  4. Therefore, in my view, creating a list of tall buildings – in which a few buildings refer to non-CTBUH sources – does not constitute OR. Labelling such a page Original Research would be akin to labelling List of countries and dependencies by population as Original Research for the sole reason that some countries' data is citing a non-United Nations source.
^ Are some of these alternative sources currently used in some city-specific page unrealiable? Absolutely. They need to be fixed. You shared a few examples too! But we must get out of this mindset that CTBUH is gospel truth.
Why do you still believe that this page contains OR?
Peace. Sawarijoshi (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
1. CVU is a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. It might be outdated but it does not make it unreliable according to Wikipedia's definition.
2. Yes, you can use different sources, but how do you find out which buildings appear in a city, how do you set a common set of criteria, etc. Those are editorial choices = original research. And in any case you cannot use another Wikipedia article as a source.
3. Sources can have mistakes, but they're still RS. Again: find another RS if you want.
4. The difference with List of countries and dependencies by population is that the list of countries is fixed and does not change. Anyone can go country by country and check their population. This is verifiable (WP:V). I cannot do so in a city.
In any case, OR is just one of the problems. The others are using RS and not using another Wikipedia article as a source. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
In a domain like construction – where a new skyscraper is being completed almost every single day – outdated is unreliable. And, outside of the "west", CTBUH is outdated by several years.
It's ironic that people within CTBUH themselves don't consider it to be a universally reliable source but, for some reason, you keep harping about it being reliable. Sawarijoshi (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
What matters are Wikipedia rules. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
For your information, I emailed the CVU regarding the discrepancy between their data and the Wikipedia page for Mumbai (as this is where the gap is massive), their answer: You are welcome to submit any discrepancies you identify through our public data portal for review. However, please note that in the case of Mumbai, our city totals reflect completed buildings only. Many of the projects included in the counts cited by Wikipedia are either still under construction or currently on hold, and therefore are not included in our official totals. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
“Our city totals reflect completed buildings only” is not the same as “our city totals reflect all completed buildings”. I would love to see someone at CTBUH claim the latter.
Since you brought up the example of Mumbai, there is plentiful evidence to prove that CTBUH’s city count (of completed buildings) is vastly inaccurate for Mumbai. But you don’t seem to be open-minded to it.
So, why don’t you tell me – what sort of evidence would you need to be convinced of the fact that CTBUH’s city count for Mumbai is inaccurate? Sawarijoshi (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Many other skyscraper enthusiasts emailed CTBUH and this is one of their replies -
"Thank you for contacting the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH). The Council relies on its extensive member network to maintain CTBUH and encourages users to share verified building information and images to enhance projects.
Due to the growth of global tall building construction, it is unlikely all tall buildings are represented on the Tall Building Database, especially those that are currently proposed or under construction. Through the annual CTBUH Year in Review data study, CTBUH can ensure that the database represents the majority of completed buildings of 200 meters in height or greater.
Please note that the preferred way to update building facts, metrics, and companies involved is through the Tall Building Image & Database Submission Portal. There, you can log in and view all your pending submissions, and see when they have been processed. If you have any questions, please let me know."
Reply was sent on January 29th, 2025. CTBUH does not even count the vast majority of towers under 200m in Mumbai which is a GINORMOUS difference. When contacting such agencies for years does not solve the problem of accurate data for a city, I don't see what the problem is in having an individual, or a group pursue this information and publish their findings on wikipedia. It is not like the editor / editors are pulling this information out of thin air either. There is a citation from reputable sources such as CTBUH and Emporis and OFFICIAL height documents and a project website from the developer to prove their existence and their height. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that. The updated info is also reviewed by editors of this article to verify accuracy and is only then reflected here. We have been through this entire process for over half a year. I really do no appreciate you changing thing as per what seems to be your wish when a consensus has been made here regarding the inaccuracy of CTBUH. This consensus has not been made by just "two" people like you stated earlier as there are atleast 5 or 6 of us here. Ahahahaa (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
@A455bcd9
Please see the mail that CTBUH had given that i have shown. The so called "authority on the official height of tall buildings" has blatantly admitted to not even accounting for the vast majority of towers below 200m in the case of Mumbai. and do not even get me started on the rest of the cities with huge discrepancies. You seem to be misinformed or have a personal agenda. CTBUH can in no way be an official source and there are more people here who agree with that than disagree ( Like i said we have come to his consensus ) Ahahahaa (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
@Ahahahaa: "You seem to be misinformed or have a personal agenda." => Please WP:NOPA and WP:AGF. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Please show me the “Wikipedia rule” which states that CTBUH is a reliable source for all cities. Sawarijoshi (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Irrespective of CVU being RS or not (it is): Do you understand that you cannot use another Wikipedia article as a source? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Again, let’s stay on one topic, please? :-) Sawarijoshi (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
This is the topic. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Sigh. My questions have only ever been about the reliability of CTBUH. Yet, throughout our conversation, you’ve kept avoiding the topic of CTBUH’s reliability, haven’t given any straight answers to my very precise and straightforward questions, and kept going off on tangents with adjacent arguments. If you’re not going to partake in a reasonable discussion by addressing questions in a rational manner instead of repeatedly avoiding them, I have nothing more to say here.
I wish you the best, Antoine. Peace and goodbye. Sawarijoshi (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
I answered: CVU is WP:RS. Goodbye, you're clearly WP:NOTHERE. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Neither are you, then. I was WP:AGF so far. Goodbye. Sawarijoshi (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
CTBUH is not a WP:RS. Sawarijoshi (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
I think you are just obsessed with showing an Indian city like Mumbai in the top 10. You are driven more with nationalism than factually reporting. This is an Encyclopedia, not a propoganda article for India. Calm Down. CTBUH is the definitive authority on these matters. Mercenary2k (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
@Mercenary2k: your message to Sawarijoshi is unacceptable. Please WP:NOPA and WP:AGF. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
I appreciate that. Sawarijoshi (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I’m sorry you feel that way. However, the (easily verifiable) truth remains that while CTBUH is an excellent compilation for western cities, its database for cities in India is outdated by several years – as admitted by CTBUH employees themselves. I have been in contact with them for nearly two years. Many of the recent Mumbai buildings they included and nearly all of the recent Hyderabad inclusions were through building documents that I have provided to them. The sad reality (according to them) is that there is little incentive for them to invest in actively updating their database for Indian buildings. They have a very small team and it’s nearly impossible for them to keep up with the pace of new skyscraper construction in many of these cities.
This list, in its current state, suffers from inaccuracies solely due to the dearth of RSs out there. So the question isn’t whether Mumbai should be in the top 10 – anyone with even the slightest interest in skyscrapers knows the ground reality. Rather, the question is – can you find reliable sources (for these cities, CTBUH isn’t RS) which meet the wiki criteria and which can be used to translate this ground reality into the wiki page.
Peace be upon you, Mercenary. Sawarijoshi (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Summary of the above discussion:

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

@LivinAWestLife: you're already been banned once for edit warring. Stop it. Join the discussion or start an WP:RFC. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Again, blatant cherry-picking of datapoints to present an extremely biased perspective (violation of WP:NPOV).
Let’s focus strictly on CVU (for now – so I beg you, for once, please stay on this topic and don’t deflect the discussion). While CVU is undoubtedly an excellent compilation of building data – perhaps even the best – it is not exhaustive. CVU itself acknowledges in its FAQ that it includes only a “majority of completed buildings above 200m.” It does not cover all skyscrapers between 150m and 200m, a height category that represents the largest number of skyscrapers in the world.
To treat CVU as a definitive record of all skyscrapers is a fundamental oversight. CVU is not an all-encompassing inventory of skyscrapers in the world and, therefore, when used in isolation, not a RS for the List of cities with the most skyscrapers. Sawarijoshi (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
CVU is definitely a RS for individual skyscraper datapoints. But, due to its lack of exhaustive coverage, it is not a RS for aggregated lists such as the List of cities with the most skyscrapers. (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS) Sawarijoshi (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
1. "Reliable source" does not mean "comprehensive" or "perfect". But it is reliable.
2. Instead of criticizing, can you offer an alternative? If you think CVU is not RS and if you don't offer an alternative RS then we can nominate this article for deletion. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
@A455bcd9 The List of cities with the most skyscrapers article is an aggregation of data. When the underlying dataset (CVU) is not exhaustive, the resulting aggregation is, by definition, inaccurate. While individual data points may be reliable, the aggregation itself is not a reliable source due to the dataset’s incompleteness.
To move this discussion forward constructively, we should first establish common ground on CVU before discussing “alternatives.” Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the above assessment of aggregate reliability. Sawarijoshi (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
I disagree and I've already explained why. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to start an WP:RFC. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Again, please refrain from deflecting the discussion. You have unilaterally altered the status quo on this page. We are all here to reach a consensus, so your constructive participation in the discussion would be appreciated. Sawarijoshi (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Your are deflecting the discussion. Prove that CVU is not RS or bring another RS. That's it. Nothing else to do. If you're unhappy => WP:RFC. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Response to "Prove that CVU is not RS":
The List of cities with the most skyscrapers article is an aggregation of data. When the underlying dataset (CVU) is not exhaustive, the resulting aggregation is, by definition, inaccurate. While individual data points may be reliable, the aggregation itself is not a reliable source due to the dataset’s incompleteness. (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS) Sawarijoshi (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
You don't understand anything. Why don't you start an WP:RFC if you're so sure of yourself? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
And yet again, no response to the actual question. Sawarijoshi (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
CVU is RS. That's the only answer. Rest is you arguing in the void. You're clearly WP:NOTHERE. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
A request for dispute resolution was filed for this page/talk thread. Can each side please present a summerized version of their ideas/evidence from the original discussion, not the following conflicts. Please avoid making personal attacks, and stick to the facts only. Skyeteam (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to tag usernames. @A455bcd9 @Ahahahaa @LivinAWestLife @Mercenary2k @Sawarijoshi Skyeteam (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
@Skyeteam: are you referring to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_cities_with_the_most_skyscrapers? If so, @Robert McClenon already offered to act as the moderator and asked to follow WP:DRNA which says: "It would be better not to discuss the article on the article talk page or on user talk pages while moderated discussion is in progress, because discussion elsewhere than at DRN may be overlooked or ignored." So why should we post here?
Also, please note that the ongoing DRN only focuses on the wording of the CVU count caveat (not discussed here), not on any of the above issues discussed in "Sources" (although it is of course an adjacent and related topic). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
It seems that you have no experience in DRN and you've just added your name to the list of volunteers (). Other editors should follow WP:DRNA and the proposed moderator's guidance and not discuss here until the moderated discussion is closed. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Keeping this thread active for now. Sawarijoshi (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

What's next?

Nothing was solved, the page is still a mess without WP:RS and that WP:NOTSOURCE. I suggest the following RFC:

"The current version of the article relies on other Wikipedia articles as sources, which is not permissible per WP:NOTSOURCE. Should we revert to 1350974204?" a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

You lost the RfC and there is a strong consensus that WP:CALC applies.
I strongly suggest we return to the status quo before this mess: we use CVU figures for the numbers unless there is consensus to use the corresponding Wikipedia article's numbers, provided the list of buildings and their heights are reliably sourced. To be fair, I am willing to accept that Mumbai should be reverted to the CVU number as its corresponding article is still a mess. This should go for Tokyo and Bangkok as well. Taipei, Toronto and Moscow's articles are adequately well sourced and I would suggest there is consensus for those. LivinAWestLife (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
The above RfC is irrelevant. We cannot "use the corresponding Wikipedia article's numbers" per WP:NOTSOURCE. Do you suggest something else or should I start the new RfC? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
To reiterate, you cannot demand a new RfC that completely ignores the previous one. Doing so is considered disruptive editing. And as the majority of editors above has agreed upon, counting up buildings is fine, and thus we have established consensus to do so. You are being wilfully obtuse. Ignoring certain rules when there is consensus to do so and when it would improve the encyclopedia is established precedent on this site, per WP:IGNOREALLRULES. LivinAWestLife (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
@A455bcd9, there was very clear and overwhelming concensus that WP:CALC applies here. Creating new RfC with the sole purpose of (what appears to be) causing disruption here is not acceptable behavior. You have already received a formal warning on the Admin Noticeboard for your past disruptive behavior. Sawarijoshi (talk) 07:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Dubai's Picture

Comapared to every other city on the page, Dubai's picture is far worse in quality. It should be replaced with something more professionally taken for consistency. Djsr27 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI