Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists

Survey

• Yes. If they were to be counted, they should be put in the "under construction, approved and proposed" section. Wobbanight
• No. Per Mattximus above, these projects very often simply don't happen and the world of what is proposed is pretty frothy. Though they can sometimes be reliably sourced as being talked about and with specific dimensions, after they fail to happen for a while, they generally aren't worth mentioning anymore and get removed. I think the point of WP:CRYSTALBALL is to exclude projections about the future which are unlikely to come true and have to be changed later. As Mattximus pointed out, even projects that have government approval often don't get built, so having approval seems like a basic filter. -- Beland (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• No. (Summoned by bot), so I'm just wandering into this, but imo not only would it be WP:CRYSTALBALL, it would be contrary to point three of WP:CSC, since theoretical buildings could very quickly number into the thousands. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  This problem (of running into thousands of buildings) can be solved through a simple criterion of including only those buildings which have concrete plans published. Sawarijoshi (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

• No. Reading the above quoted policies, the proposed buildings should definitely not be considered for the list. Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• No. Proposed and planned buildings run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. I've watched these lists for many years, and almost all the proposed never get built. It's not very encyclopedic to include potential buildings that might get built without even knowing the final height! Strongly believe we should include only actual existing skyscrapers, but am open to ones under construction since they are physical things. But strongly oppose including approved or proposed. Those are not encyclopedic. Mattximus (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Yes. I know this is currently the minority position, but proposed sections on these lists do not seem like a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL in the same way that the given examples over on the policy page are. Once a proposal has been made, it often attracts significant reliable coverage, at least in the United States and United Kingdom. We have pages for some particularly significant ones, such as 175 Park Avenue. A proposal is a concrete plan by a developer to construct a building, which is different from a rumour on, say, a potential game by a video game company. While it's true many of the proposed sections never get built, a significant proportion do. And even being under construction is no guarantee of completion - a development could go on hold. I think limiting proposals to those with given height is acceptable, however. If this section would too long, the height cutoff can be raised compared to the rest of the article, as seen on Toronto's page. (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  Since this issue arose with the Birmingham article, I think the feeling that such sections are unnecessary are compounded by the current length of the article. For other tallest building lists, the proposed section, if there is one, have manageable lengths (less than 20 entries, usually). And I would agree that proposals that haven't had any news for a significant period of time (e.g. 3 or 5 years) should definitely be removed. LivinAWestLife (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• No. - (pinged per prior involvement) I don’t recall what I said before, but my thought is that these should list actual buildings per the title, and I can see there being sections for under construction or demolished and sections for by-year or by-sublocation. (Examples in UK or Canada lists). But I think it a bit much to even list ‘approved for construction’ as there are cases where nothing is built (example in UK list approved in 2013), so even worse if it’s just preliminary approvals. But just planned or proposed should be right out as that’s not even a stable item nor on any third party official filing so V would only be difficult … umm seems like anyone could make up a thought and enter it. So a definite ‘no’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Yes per LivinAWestLife. — Mainly 18:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
• Thanks to LivinAWestLife for pinging me here. I would say no for projects that haven't been approved and yes for projects that have received formal approval. I recognize that some entries might violate WP:CRYSTAL, and that is certainly true of proposed buildings without any formal approval. As mentioned above, this could quickly result in an unmanageable list of proposals for buildings, most of which stand zero chance of being built. (To give an extreme example, a very lax interpretation of the proposal above would see The Illinois being added to the List of tallest buildings in Chicago page, even though it's almost certain to never be built.)
  This doesn't extend to planned buildings with formal approval; while they're still technically not built, the existence of formal approval could merit a mention, provided that there are reliable sources about the proposed building. I don't think we should interpret WP:CRYSTAL to exclude any future action from being mentioned on Wikipedia, just those that stand no chance. A formal approval means that the building is likely already in the process of being developed, and it would not be helpful for readers not to know about these. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Yes. I fully support the inclusion of proposed buildings for which sufficient details have been published. LivinAWestLife has made several strong arguments, all of which I agree with. If concerns persist regarding the overall length of a page, a practical yet simple solution would be to raise the height threshold required for listing an entry. Provided there is sufficient evidence of a building having reasonably detailed plans, its inclusion is both justified and valuable. Readers look to these pages not only as a source of information about existing buildings, but also to stay informed about upcoming developments. Excluding such proposed buildings would be a miss. — Sawarijoshi (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
• Slightly Yes, considering that The Skyscraper Center and SkyscraperPage include such buildings into their lists, but the list should be limited to the 5 to 10 tallest only, with certain "timeframe/deadline/estimated completion"; as there are WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:CSC concerns. The proposed buildings do not necessarily need stand-alone articles, but a reliable source for each of them is required, at the very least. Any unsourced "proposed building" should be removed to prevent made-up building cases. For "approved" buildings, my stance is a better yes, with less restriction on the number of buildings (probably around 15 to 20 at maximum). To prevent overcrowding, building projects in both lists should not be kept longer than their supposed start or completion date. If they failed to materialize, then they should be moved to "vision" or "unbuilt" buildings list instead, subject to notability. Samuelsp15 (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
• Yes There have been many proposed projects that have ended up receiving their own Wikipedia article, and many do eventually get built. It also gives readers a good source of information to find any new developments, which can be difficult to find sometimes. I think they should stay - but with a proposed rule change: Proposed Buildings must be removed from an article if there has been no update within 3-5 years. I say this because many buildings that do get approved or built often have 1-3 year gaps in terms of news coverage on any updates. I'd say 3 years is good for buildings that seemed a bit outlandish and unlikely to be built in the first place, while 5 years is good for buildings that seemingly were a serious consideration, but something must've came up and ends up delayed indefinitely, which is de-facto cancelled in many cases.Hij802 (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

  I've watched these pages for well over a decade. Almost none of the proposed are actually built. Some are built with radically different heights. It's really not encyclopedic to include potential buildings in a list of buildings, which are actual things. Old encyclopedias would only report actual buildings in a list of buildings, not potential buildings some firm dreamed up. There will literally be thousands and thousands with a good citation, that will never be built and have no purpose in a List of tallest buildings. Again, how can a building be in the list of tallest buildings if it's not even built and the height isn't known? Mattximus (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  The issue with this only occurs if a page receives little attention, otherwise the updated height would have been reported on long ago and the table updated. There are not "literally thousands" with a good citation, even for a city like New York, above the height threshold. This is huge hyperbole. A developer requires substantial funding and has to go through an approval process if they are serious about a project. The year proposed should be included, in a column, so older proposals can be removed. LivinAWestLife (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• No WP:CSC states “Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group”. Proposed buildings are not verifiably apart of the list of tallest buildings as they do not exist now at all they are just proposed and that proposal may never be fully enacted. GothicGolem29 (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
• Maybe these lists need a short paragraph saying that at any point in time, there are all sorts of proposals that might or might not actually happen in reality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  But with this qualification, thousands of proposals can be added. Firms make proposals all the time as advertisements. Why include these? Mattximus (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  It is extremely rare for firms make proposals to advertise themselves. People with less knowledge of the skyscraper industry seem to think a "proposal" is referring to any random guy or company saying "I want to build a mile-high tower next to my house!", as if that surpasses WP:GNG. That is very different from how high-rise real estate development actually works. Websites like Urbanize and NewYorkYimby only report on proposals that have a substantial chance of coming to fruition. And if they aren't, they will be removed. LivinAWestLife (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'm speaking from watching these pages for over 10 years, the vast majority of the proposals added are not actually constructed, so it really does fall under WP:CRYSTAL. Mattximus (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• No. There is absolutely no reason to include proposed buildings, especially with the difficulty of determining whether a proposal has been abandoned or not. Readers expect that a list of tallest buildings will contain actual buildings and not proposals that may be completely unrealistic. Saying that they can be used to find about new developments reminds me of this xkcd comic.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  That comic has very little to do with the topic at hand. There is a consistent agreement on the yes side to remove or retire proposals that are sufficiently old, and frankly this indeed would be the easiest way for a casual user to find out about the tallest potential developments in a city. There's no consistent database or news organization that does that otherwise.

  As stated before, only realistic proposals with proper developer backing and funding, going through the approval seeking process, are included in the first place. Outlandish visions like the "Big Bend" in New York City are never included. LivinAWestLife (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  • I don't believe such a minor use case is worth cluttering the lists for, especially when it's entirely hypothetical whether anyone's actually doing that.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• No, as it would blatantly turn those lists into WP:CRYSTALBALLs. Merko (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
• Strong no I see the yes group trying to come up with a different line in the sand so the list only includes projects likely to be completed, but the reality is no building belongs on the list of tallest buildings until it is, in reality, one of the tallest buildings. And that simply cannot happen in conception. Consider, for example, the release of the spire on the Chrysler building here, which was constructed surreptitiously on the 65th and 66th floors and then riveted in place in 90 minutes, giving Van Alen's structure the title of tallest building in the world until the completion of the Empire State Building. If the building doesn't exist in three-dimensional reality, it has no business having its name alongside completed structures. Penguino35 (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  The list of movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe includes movies that are yet to be released, still in post-production, still being filmed, or even in earlier stages of production. There is no guarantee they will be released. Should they be excluded from the page? Your example which happened almost a century ago is not very relevant, and the Chrysler Building would be one of the tallest buildings in New York regardless. In the modern era, organizations like CTBUH keep track of building heights very strictly, proposals included. These lists have always had a section for proposed buildings without issue. I do not understand the need to fix something that isn't broken. LivinAWestLife (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Rarely do proposed buildings on wikipedia (over the last decade of me watching them) have posted heights become actual final heights. This is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball. I don't think bringing up unrelated topics is helpful to our discussion. Remember, if a proposed building is actually built (a big if), it can then just be added to the list. It's not a race. Mattximus (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed, @Mattximus. Per recentism, "Just wait and see. Remember there is no deadline, and consensus can change later on. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball. This is especially true during a news spike, when there is mass interest to create and update articles on a current event, regardless of whether it may be historically significant later on." The point of my example being that until third party sources can see the completed building with their own eyes, it doesn't exist. And therefore doesn't belong on a list of existing buildings. Penguino35 (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Yes. I strongly support the inclusion of proposed skyscrapers for which sufficient details have been published. Anthonyt31201 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Strong No: A complete violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. The worst part is that most such announced projects don't even see the light of day. — EarthDude (Talk) 18:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Yes. I find it strange that people are citing WP:CRYSTALBALL which states that Wikipedia should not predict the future. Proposed buildings are not wanton speculation based on individual editors' whims; we are talking about existing proposals which have already been announced and worked on by architects, developers, contractors, etc. The proposals themselves most certainly exist in the present tense, and I don't think it's appropriate to cite WP:CRYSTALBALL in this case. Kestreltail (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  An explanation why so many people are calling it speculative, is that the page is a "list of tallest buildings" not a list of buildings that may or may not be tall in the future. Shouldn't a list of buildings only include actual buildings? Not potential ones that may one day be built? Also it says "tallest" but how do you know how tall a potential building is? All these are WP:CRYSTAL violations. Mattximus (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  Building heights are not speculative. Most major proposals have exact heights that are known beforehand. Should they be changed before construction, sources will exist to indicate that a change has occurred. LivinAWestLife (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry I should have been more clear. Since there is no actual building, the heights are by definition speculative. Having monitored these pages for over a decade, it's safe to say that the predicted height, and actual height are rarely the same. For it to avoid crystal ball, it should be 100% the same. Why are we placing potential buildings on a list of actual real life buildings? We can always add them when they are built and actual real things. What's the rush to add potentially incorrect information into an encyclopedia? Mattximus (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  The bottom line is if readers come to this list to reference the tallest buildings, what they find will be a confusing experience of finished buildings and projected construction projects. Penguino35 (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  I really doubt any prospective reader would find it confusing, given that these lists have operated without problem for twenty years now. The main list is separately viewable on its own, and the proposals are clearly listed as proposed in a separate section and clearly marked as such. There was widespread consensus to include them back then and no consensus to remove them now.

  Do you have much experience in following high-rise construction? LivinAWestLife (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  Weather there is consensus to remove them or not will be decided at the close so I would dispute that there is no consensus to remove them given the RFC is ongoing. GothicGolem29 (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  I mean there is no strong consensus either way. LivinAWestLife (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  Ok fair enough guess it isn't strong snd what the consensus will be will be decided at the close. GothicGolem29 (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  @LivinAWestLife, your response here made me realize I may have jumped the gun. Are all "list of tallest buildings" pages set up to have the completed buildings listed first with proposed and uncompleted lists below them on the page, as was done on the Chicago page? It seems that if that initial list of "Tallest Buildings" always only includes completed buildings, there is no issue here. And the RfC is simply vague.

  CLARIFICATION FOR THOSE COMING HERE FROM THE RFC TAG: There are multiple lists on each page of "List of Tallest Buildings." @Beland, which list on the article are you suggesting "no government approval" buildings would or would not be included on? If the answer is the first list of "Tallest Buildings," I vehemently say no. If the answer is the "proposed buildings" list, that's another question altogether. Penguino35 (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  The RFC question is whether to remove unapproved buildings entirely from the list page. For example, a "Proposed" sublist that only includes buildings that have not yet received government approval would be removed entirely. This is not a proposal to start segregating proposed and constructed buildings into different sublists; that is already happening in the lists I have checked. List of tallest buildings is only one affected page; there are many other tallest building lists like List of tallest buildings in New York City and List of tallest buildings and structures in the Birmingham metropolitan area. See subcategories of Category:Lists of tallest buildings for a complete survey. -- Beland (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, the lists as they should be now have all completed buildings in its own section and table, then a section below that for buildings under construction, then another section below that for proposed buildings, as is currently done on the Chicago page.

  Since this has caused some confusion, I think it would be helpful to clarify that this RfC is to remove the proposed section entirely, a table that is already completely separate from the main list. This format has worked fine for twenty years without causing any confusion or ambiguity. LivinAWestLife (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  I just did. -- Beland (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, I meant to reply to Penguino35's comment separately since they tagged me, and when I said "it would be helpful to clarify" I just meant that I would restate it in that very sentence. LivinAWestLife (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  "worked fine for twenty years without causing any confusion" seems to be contradicted by Mattximus commenting below that they have found this confusing for many years. 99% of readers who have a problem with an article won't make a complaint, and even fewer try to fix it. -- Beland (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Mattximus is the only reader or editor I've ever seen express this viewpoint, having attempted to remove the section from Chicago's page before. This somehow occurred only after I had begun to work on these articles. I have seen hundreds more editing those sections with consensus to keep them. Longstanding consensus from WP:SKY members has always supported their inclusion under "Tallest under construction, approved or proposed*", as you can see on this page.

  User:Blueandwhitestripes deviated heavily from this when editing the Birmingham article, leading to the first RfC where WP:CRYSTAL was used as justification to remove the many separate sections on potential buildings, much of which was spurious and rightfully deleted. The result of that RfC was to keep a single proposed section. Attempting to go further on all such articles when there isn't any existing consistency across them (I edited this page with the intention that these are just guidelines) is overreach and an inconsiderate blanket application of WP:CRYSTAL without understanding what it is meant for: to prevent unfounded speculation and fortune-telling on Wikipedia instead of concrete proposals with RS coverage, financial backing, and detailed plans. LivinAWestLife (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Well, now I am wondering if doing a systematic survey of the talk pages and edit history of all of these articles over the past 20 years would find more editors who had either complained about this material or attempted to remove it, who were also ignored or reverted. -- Beland (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  That could be welcome, although personally I have not seen any such complaints so far, with the exception of that from Mattximus. To be honest my experiences with the talk pages of most of these articles is that they are very short. LivinAWestLife (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not going to put in a ton of work to do such a survey; my point was simply that the previous report that this had never come up was factually incorrect, and as a result I would not trust a new report that this only came up once. -- Beland (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  I find it baffling that someone would look at a page with SEPARATE tables under SEPARATE headers and still get “confused” about whether a building is completed or proposed. That does not make any sense at all. Sawarijoshi (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Penguino35 The RfC is meant to be the latter. Based on the discussion so far, I don’t see a single person advocating to include proposed buildings in the “completed” table. The RfC is about removing the “proposed” table altogether. Please feel free to update your vote if you wish to. Sawarijoshi (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  For many years I've found it confusing to have both real buildings and potential buildings on a list of tallest buildings. Imagine a list of fastest cars and it included cars that might be built in 5 years and might go faster. It doesn't make any sense. Most people here seem to agree, as the no votes outnumber the yes 11 to 6. Mattximus (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  A list of proposed fastest cars is not something that receives significant media attention, kept track of by databases that list the fastest cars, or discussed frequently among fans of cars. It is wholly inapplicable to this topic, but should there be a fast car that is under development and has received coverage from RS, yes it should be included in your hypothetical list. LivinAWestLife (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t think that’s a good analogy. Proposed skyscrapers (especially those with proper architectural plans) are real projects under development. Proposed cars, on the other hand, are often just concepts or prototypes without guaranteed production. Moreover, there is often a very significant difference between a concept car and its actual production version. Buildings seldom undergo such drastic changes once the plans are published. The level of certainty and documentation is very different. Sawarijoshi (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  This last statement is very wrong. Of the proposed buildings I've seen on these lists over the years, almost all were never built as described, and almost never was it built at the predicted height. It is without ambiguity WP:CRYSTAL since it's speculative by it's very nature. Simply put, a plan for a building that might be built at maybe the height described is not a building. A potential building doesn't belong on a list of buildings. Mattximus (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  But it's not part of the main list and never will be. It's in its own small section that does not mislead anyone to thinking its part of the main list. These articles are not simply a blanket list of tallest buildings, they are about a city's high-rise character and developmental history in general, and such a section is informative. Otherwise any list on Wikipedia would contain a single table and no other information.

  Furthermore, I highly doubt your claim that they are "almost never" built as described, since I have followed skyscraper development for quite long as well and I would say a comfortable 20% of proposals are built as initially proposed and up to half receive changes before they are built (again, changes can simply be reflected on this list). Those that aren't built as routinely removed as they have always been.

  This is a non-issue. Over thirty tallest building lists were made into featured articles with nary an issue raised about the inclusion of a section of proposed buildings. This is artificial consensus raised, from what I gather, from editors who have little involvement in editing or maintaing of skyscraper-related articles, while editors who have are overwhelmingly in favor of retaining them. LivinAWestLife (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  Predictions that have an 80%-90% chance of not coming true seem like exactly the sort of thing WP:CRYSTAL is meant to exclude. Standards for featured articles have generally been raised over time, meaning some articles have been de-featured or improved retroactively. All consensus is "artificial", in the sense that it's created by people. It's not surprising that people who are the most enthusiastic about a subject would go overboard in adding content, but what matters is not who is doing what, but the merit of content for readers.

  If a proposal is small enough that it's removed when it's not built, then it's not a notable part of the developmental history of a city, and I would have to wonder why it's there in the first place. -- Beland (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

• Strong No: As a reader, I'd expect that list to be a list of actual buildings, not proposed ones. I'd go further and say that a building under construction should not be included until it's physically reached the height required to place it on the list. Dw31415 (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Just as background, Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in the Birmingham Metropolitan Area, West Midlands/Archive 1#RFC on approved, proposed, and emergent structures decided to remove these sections from that list, but there has since been complaint on that talk page that the guideline here should be applied uniformly across all of these lists. This question has also previously been raised on this talk page. -- Beland (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I've notified this RfC to the talk page of WikiProject Skyscrapers. Should we notify WikiProject Skyscraper members and regular editors of the Birmingham article? Given that it would affect a lot of pages across this site. Of the current respondents, only one (myself) is a WikiProject Skyscrapers member. I think having the input of other WikiProject members would be valuable.LivinAWestLife (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC) (edited 11:08 UTC)

Very informal, but holy crap I have never seen a building list article like that. That Moo Deng editor really went all out on that one. Hij802 (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I feel the need to emphasize that the Birmingham article and the discussions that took place there are very idiosyncratic compared to the rest of these articles, with its own formatting scheme and subheadings that are found on no other article. This was mainly done by one editor who took to editing the page himself over the past five years, making it unnaturally wieldy. Compounded with the absurdly low height limit there, it made sense that the proposed section(s) were extremely lengthy and speculative. This is unlike most other articles with such a section, which are kept short and digestable. I think the initial RfC should continue to be applied there, but this RfC should have been made when that article has been tidied up and shortened. LivinAWestLife (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a question about an entire class of articles; the answer should not depend on whether or not one article in that class happens to be tidy or untidy. My objection to inclusion is based on WP:CRYSTAL, which is a general principle that prevents problems with content quality, regardless of quantity. -- Beland (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

None of this would have happened if the editor of the Birmingham article, which I had had a lengthy dispute with last month over the length of this article, had made his article so unreasonably long. That prompted the first RfC which some editors are now trying to apply to every tallest building article despite long-standing consensus to include them. Without his reckless edits, this issue would not even be a point of discussion. I would like to mention it deepens my grudge of him due to the destructive results of his editing, but that’s not the most relevant here. In general, I regard blanket application WP:CRYSTAL as unsuitable; Wikipedia does not apply its policies identically to every article and the applications of a lot of policies are decided on a topic by topic basis.

I have spent a lot of time improving these articles so they can be a more accessible, informative, and reliable source of tall buildings compared to CTBUH and SkyscraperPage, whose databases are a combination of incomplete, inaccessible, unaccountable, and paywalled. These databases all have information on proposed buildings, in a more confusing way than it currently exists on Wikipedia. Readers know these articles are an informative place to learn about a city’s proposed skyscrapers, since it is often more complete and up to date than both CTBUH or SkyscraperPage. I have seen users express that this information is useful multiple times on other sites, while no one has said they were misled by the title of this article or that the information was superfluous.

I would also like to reiterate that these articles are not solely about a city’s tallest buildings, otherwise they would consist of one table and nothing else. The list of MCU movies discusses future and potential ones. The list of Olympic Games includes future events in Los Angeles and Brisbane. Like proposed buildings, they are not guaranteed to happen. There is strong precedent for including information on potential list entries for a variety of topics when it has been covered by RS. LivinAWestLife (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:NPA requires us not to make personal attacks on other editors.

I don't think your "none of this would have happened" theory is correct. I came to this article because it had a HTML entity that needed to be converted to a character, and many MOS:STRAIGHT violations. While I was cleaning that up I noticed some material that looked like it violated WP:CRYSTAL. That was not related to article length; on similar runs in the past I've noticed small data tables on well-sized articles that also violated WP:CRYSTAL and kicked off a debate about whether to trim them.

WP:CRYSTAL gives the Olympics as an example of future events that are "notable and almost certain to take place". Something with an 80%-90% chance of not happening doesn't count as "almost certain". It was very unexpected and notable that the 2020 Summer Olympics didn't happen; you're saying the buildings that aren't constructed aren't notable. I don't know what the track record of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is in delivering promised movies nor what our criteria for inclusion is, and I don't know if our articles are correctly applying WP:CRYSTAL to them. I assume it would be notable and we would mention if one of them was promised but not delivered, so it does not feel the same as these buildings. -- Beland (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposals generally confer notability if and when they are reported in reliable sources in local, real estate, or developmental media organizations. As I mentioned, after some time has elapsed and the proposal is regarded as dormant, they are removed as they should be, and already are, and no longer meet general notability guidelines.

I understand WP:CRYSTAL is an important policy, which is why these pages don't include heavily speculative proposals, especially those that receive little media treatment or are treated as being unlikely to be built. Nor should these lists include unserious proposals made by organizations that aren't developers or random people. A developer making a proposal almost always intends to see it built under favorable economic circumstances. They have a concrete plan and have to go through the (often onerous) application process with the local planning authority and the requisite permits. At the very least, approved buildings which stand a good chance of being built should be included. LivinAWestLife (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

That seems to rub against the notability guideline, which says that notability is not temporary. That guideline is for standalone articles, not list entries, so there's just generally a lower threshold for inclusion, but I think the general idea holds: if something is obscure enough to be deleted 5 years from now if there are no further developments on it, it isn't notable enough for us to include now. -- Beland (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

List inclusion indeed would have a lower threshold for inclusion. Proposals that are unrealized will become "unbuilt" buildings and these generally maintain notability of its own - Chicago's page has such a list for the most notable former proposals. Rather, removing them is acknowleding that their chances of becoming built are heavily reduced, to avoid making the section too long. People understand this section is for ongoing, active proposals that stand a chance of being built (if there is doubt on this, the sentence before the table could be amended to clarify it.) They still have notability if RS has reported on it, but including every skyscraper proposal made in New York City within the last 100 years in the proposed or unbuilt section would simply the list impractical to navigate, which is why we don't currently do it. LivinAWestLife (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Right, I think it's exactly that practice of using Wikipedia to publish ephemeral information which is the problem. Proposals that would be kept on a permanent "unbuilt" list make more sense to list in the proposed phase. Though the criteria for inclusion in "unbuilt" are unclear to me and might need to be revised if this RFC removes all unapproved buildings. -- Beland (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)