Talk:List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru

Lists Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skyscrapers Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of tallest bridges in the world which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"nation's second highest-ranked city"?

Then why is it that List of cities with the most skyscrapers placed Johor Bahru as third in Malaysia?

Are skyscrapers measured from 200m in height only? Please look at the above article and explain, 155.69.190.63. hundenvonPG (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O requested, since discussions are deadlocked and as per WP:DRN#List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru. hundenvonPG (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary for the benefit of WP:3O/other editors:

Disputed sentence:

Johor Bahru is also currently the nation's second highest-ranked city in terms of number of 200 metres and above skyscrapers.

Arguments:

For:

"CTBUH did the ranking on number of 200m buildings"
"Just like some other pages like Jakarta are also looking at 200 metres or 300 metres or 400 metres"

Against:

Majority of published sources use 150 metres as the definition of a skyscraper. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat's database of cities lists them, first and foremost, in the order of total buildings exceeding 150 metres.
Similar lists for global cities in WP use 150 metres as the baseline, more common than 200 metres. Disputed sentence raises the issue of consistency.
IP address' edits suggest that 200 metres was arbitrarily picked over the more common 150-metre definition, with arguments to justify their edits lacking grounds whatsoever.

Comments from Robert McClenon in suggesting 3O for dispute resolution:

"The issue appears to be a matter of the criterion for a list of buildings, but that seems to be irrelevant, since any building that is more than 200 m high will also be in a list of buildings that are more than 150 m high."

hundenvonPG (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logical thinking, and I ask you back, are skyscrapers measured from 150m only? If you check out the definition of skyscrapers, it could be from 100m too, and in some other sources where you can search in Researchgate or Elsevier or Engineering Village, you could even find other definitions. But that's not the main point here, I guess you are not getting my point here. We are not trying to define or even redefine what constitutes a skyscraper, we are instead looking at the number of 200 meters building. That's it. Is it hard to comprehend actually? Just like some other pages like Jakarta are also looking at 200 metres or 300 metres or 400 metres. They are just simply figures and CTBUH ranks the buildings/cities based on various criteria and I am just here to articulate their ranking statistics. I am not even creating some statistics on my own like the claimed 'second largest agglomeration' fraud. Above 150meters, then Penang has more 150m+ buildings, but for 200m+ buildings, then JB has more. Where did you see I am redefining the definition for a skyscraper? 155.69.190.63 (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you may not fully understand the phrase 'in terms of'. Let me teach you based on Cambridge definitions, in terms of means 'used to describe which particular area of a subject you are discussing'. In this regard, I am not talking about the number of skyscrapers as a general case, I am just using the ranking given by the exact same source of CTBUH website you used that ranks the cities based on 200m+ buildings, any redefinitions you have seen? 155.69.190.63 (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I really wonder where do you see I am trying to rank the cities based on number of skyscrapers here? Clearly I am just stating the statistics published by CTBUH, right? CTBUH did the ranking on number of 200m buildings, then I just state their discoveries. It's just that simple, so why is there a need to have such discussion when you can see the exact same content on number of 200m buildings on other pages like Jakarta page? 155.69.190.63 (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely do not understand the motives and logic behind your argument, though. If 200m is an arbitrary limit, then why is there a need for CTBUH, the largest building organisation in the world, to do this research based on this so called arbitrary criteria in the first place? I genuinely do not think they have ample time to do this ranking if it is useless and arbitrary as claimed by you. Do you know what you are saying, seriously? 155.69.190.63 (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CTBUH did the ranking based on research and data analysis, I am just here to reiterate their rankings. Is there any inappropriate thing you want to discuss. I am not even comparing which city has highest number of skyscrapers, I am looking at cities having buildings taller than 200m as indicated by CTBUH. Many researchers are using the same number. According to CTBUH, There is no absolute definition of what constitutes a “tall building;” the definition is subjective, considered against one or more of the following categories. According to Wikipedia, skyscraper is 'there is no universally accepted definition, other than being very tall high-rise buildings'.

I hope you understand 'a skyscraper' and 'a skyscraper with heights taller than 200m/250m/300m/350/400m' are totally different cases to be discussed in a meaningful manner. Same thing, number of skyscrapers and number of skyscrapers with heights taller than 200m/250m/300m/350/400m are totally different things, as you can see in numerous other Wiki pages. That's is why CTBUH has different height criteria ranking and methodologies in the first place. They are not some laymen doing random or arbitrary things. 155.69.190.63 (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From your argument, the List of cities with the most skyscrapers should be rewritten to only include skyscrapers above 200m, yes? All skyscraper-related lists should "rightly" revolve around your Jakarta-based definition of 200m, correct?
Did you even bother reading this sentence?

A skyscraper is defined as a continuously habitable high-rise building that has over 40 floors^[1] and is taller than approximately 150 m (492 ft).^[2]

"but for 200m+ buildings, then JB has more"

Did you even bother reading your own CBTUH source? 3 in Johor Bahru is bigger than 3 in Penang? Look who is the one not getting the point here. Period. hundenvonPG (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC) hundenvonPG (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are still not getting the point here. I need you to read through Skyscraper first to appreciate the meaning of no universally accepted criteria. And that is the EXACT REASON why CTBUH has two rankings based on 150m and 200m heights respectively, and even until today, there is still no standardised criteria by this organization. Why don't you propose to them to set a globally accepted criteria before discussing over here? If every Wiki page has to follow 150m standard even there is even no universal standard in the first place, and why don't you go and ask the worldwide editors to modify other Wiki pages like Dubai (even list 180metres) and Shanghai and uncountable others, so that Wiki can standardise on this matter? 155.69.184.1 (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really wonder why you are SOLELY focusing on JB page when numerous other pages did the same thing. Again, do you understand that there is no universal definition on this? Or do you want to become the first person in the world to set a standard on skyscraper heights? And also ask CTBUH, the world's largest building authority, to stop ranking cities based on 200m criteria since they will be wasting their time on arbitrary random number? 155.69.184.1 (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not answered my question: Why 200m? Why not 100m? 150m? 300m? Who are you to cherry pick which figure is which? Denying what most sources agree to be accepted height, you created fallacious facts with no reliable sourcing in the first place, all for your arbritary puffery.

You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. You have simply failed to do so. hundenvonPG (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources? Seriously, man? CTBUH never said confidently everyone agreed on this height but you said it loud and clear with confidence, I see you are indeed the first person in the world to unite the construction industry. Same question I throw back to you, why can't 200m height be used? How did you even know that most sources/scientists/researchers have unanimously agreed on a same specific height and no other heights are acceptable? Do you really know what you are saying here? Fallacious and unreliable? You dare to say this? Try to cultivate some research spirits in yourself and delve into the academic world and see how diverse the experts have been on different buildings heights. I have the account to access various academic papers, I want to you to explore the divergent opinions on construction industry, tell me if you can't access: https://www.jstor.org/ . 155.69.184.1 (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? What claim I have made? I am not that great person as you to make a certain claim that 150m being the only height to be accepted. I never made any claim from beginning till now, all I did was just reiterating the ranking published by CTBUH which I just simply copied and pasted, if you are not satisfied with that, tell the CEO of CTBUH that you can do better job than him and I will follow up with you. Thanks. 155.69.184.1 (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you never answered my question, why do you solely target on JB when many other Wiki pages for the world's biggest cities are not adopting the same standard? And it is even absurd to think about 150m being the one and only height that can be accepted as claimed by you. 155.69.184.1 (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will need you to simply stop those baseless accusations on me, such as "who are you to cherry pick...""created fallacious facts""arbitrary puffery". That really hurts me when you don't have any evidence and I was just citing CTBUH which is exactly the same organisation you cited for others. 155.69.184.1 (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Skyscraper". Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 2016-10-26. Retrieved 25 October 2016.
^ Ambrose, Gavin; Harris, Paul; Stone, Sally (2008). The Visual Dictionary of Architecture. Switzerland: AVA Publishing SA. p. 233. ISBN 978-2-940373-54-3.

Third opinion

Hello, I'd like to offer a third opinion, but the conversation (both here and at DRN) has become very convoluted and imbalanced, and editor conduct issues or personality conflicts are getting mixed up with content disagreements. I see lots of disagreement, but am still not fundamentally clear on what each editor wants this page to look like at the conclusion of this discussion. To assist me, I would like to ask each of the two editors to provide a very short summary of the desired content changes they would like to see. Please keep your comments under 150 words (shorter is possible), and do not comment on the behavior of the other editor, just summarize the content changes you are advocating for. Thank you. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viewpoint by HundenvonPenang (talk · contribs)

Thanks for taking this issue up penultimate supper.

Essentially this sentence here is in dispute:

Johor Bahru is also currently the nation's second highest-ranked city in terms of number of 200 metres and above skyscrapers.

Which, as I have summarised above, not only appears arbritrary, but also misleading, as many published sources (and several similar lists in WP) use 150 metres as the definition of a skyscraper.

Objectively speaking, if 150 metres is the most commonly accepted definition, then 150 metres should prevail in the interest of consistency. I suggest a recalibration to shift from 200 metres to 150 metres as the baseline.

Proposed change: According to the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) as of 2024, Johor Bahru has 33 skyscrapers exceeding 150 metres in height, the third most in Malaysia.

Viewpoint by 155.69.184.1 (talk · contribs) / 155.69.190.63 (talk · contribs) (believed to be a single editor, based on evidence from DRN): Not provided, and third opinion concluded for now. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Penultimate supper, I suggested to just directly remove that entire disputed sentence as you can see in other Wiki pages like Kuala Lumpur, Petaling Jaya, Melaka, as well as other big cites' Wiki pages, none of them writes similar sentence. 2001:D08:1281:9DB9:8148:6255:D9C5:B6A1 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those pages (eg. KL, Tokyo, Singapore, Melbourne, etc.) only write the number of the tall buildings within the respective cities themselves, but none of them contains the ranking with other cities, which seems extremely unnecessary to me. All editors should bear in mind that this page is about the List of TALLEST BUILDING, not about the ranking with other cities which should be and has been included in List of cities with the most skyscrapers, not here. 2001:D08:1281:9DB9:8148:6255:D9C5:B6A1 (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is because, this Wiki page is about the ranking of the tallest building in that particular city, not about the ranking of which city has more buildings. It seems to me a competition between the users as they are simply comparing which city has more buildings for now, which is already out of context for this Wiki page. This Wiki page should only contain which building is the tallest in the city, not about comparison of the number of buildings with other cities which is totally irrelevant. 2001:D08:1281:9DB9:8148:6255:D9C5:B6A1 (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Penultimate supper, I totally concur with your viewpoints below saying "the proposed version avoids issues of inconsistency and limits the need for explanation, letting this list focus on being a list. I think the comparative ranking could also be left out completely—if it proves too controversial—since this list is focused on internal aspects of Johor Bahru, not its relationship/comparison to other cities."

See the example below from the list of tallest building in Taipei as follows,

"This list of tallest buildings in Taipei ranks skyscrapers in the Taiwanese capital region of Greater Taipei by height, which includes the municipalities of Taipei City and New Taipei City, hereafter simply referred to as Taipei. As of March 2024, Taipei contains 35 buildings above 150 metres (492 ft) in height.

The first building to surpass 150 metres (492 ft) in Taipei was the Shin Kong Life Tower, which was completed in 1993 and is 244.8 m (803 ft) tall. Currently, the tallest building in Taipei is the 101–story Taipei 101, which rises 508 metres (1,667 ft) and was completed in 2004. Taipei 101 was the world's tallest building from 2004 to 2010. Now, it is still the tallest building in Taiwan, Asia's 6th tallest building and the world's 10th tallest building."

See the correct example of a good article above? That list shows an exemplary example by not showing any ranking with other cities on the number of buildings which is irrelevant, instead the list just compares the tallest building within the city itself, and what does its tallest building (Taipei 101) rank in the world. That article should be the example for Johor Bahru. 2001:D08:1281:9DB9:8148:6255:D9C5:B6A1 (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@hundenvonPG, I see that you are from the state of Penang, Malaysia. So what exactly are the messages you are trying to convey here? The ranking/competition with other cities, or simply the list of the tallest building within the city itself. I also require your attention on the importance of neutrality of every single Wiki page when writing the article, that is, every Wiki page must be totally unbiased and we are here to let the readers know what they want to know in that page, in this case, the list of tallest buildings within Johor Bahru itself, not about the unnecessary competition with other cities. I believe this is not hard to comprehend for all editors here. I also believe that you understand what is the the main theme of this Wiki list. What was the original intention of this article in the first place? Put yourself in the shoe of a reader, do you want to know the ranking with other cities, or do you want to know what is the tallest building in that city? Again, without the need to reiterate, see List of tallest buildings in Taipei. Cheers. 2001:D08:1281:9DB9:8148:6255:D9C5:B6A1 (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For all editors involved in the dispute here, I hope you understand my viewpoints above. For the sake of consistency, are you going to add the ranking into each and every Wiki list for other Malaysian cities, like KL, PJ, Melaka, Ipoh and other cities? What information do the readers desire to obtain from each of the lists I mentioned, the irrelevant ranking/relationships with other cities, or the tallest skyscraper in that city they wanted to know? And if so, the two of you should understand that Malaysian cities' skyscraper pages are not separated from the global Wiki skyscraper project's pages/lists. They are all part and parcel of the Wiki Skyscraper project. Then again, for the sake of consistency, are you going to change the way other Wiki lists/pages write about the list of the tallest building so to ensure that every city in the world competes/ranks against each other in Wikipedia rather than to let the global readers know which building is currently the tallest in that city/urban area? I hope the editors in dispute here can go a step further to ponder over these questions. In my opinion, just completely eradicate that unnecessary sentence and let the readers focus on the information they are searching for. 2001:D08:1281:9DB9:8148:6255:D9C5:B6A1 (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would offer another suggestion, like many other similar Wiki lists on the tallest building in the each of the global cities, just state the number of the buildings exceeding XXm heights in that city without making any relationships with other irrelevant cities. For instance, XX (number) exceeding 100m, XX exceeding 150m, XX exceeding 300m in Johor Bahru, so on and so forth, so we can be on the same writing style as other lists in the global Wikipedia Skyscraper project. There is no justification on the significance to include how the city ranks against each other in these lists. 2001:D08:1281:9DB9:8148:6255:D9C5:B6A1 (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that 2001:D08:1281:9DB9:8148:6255:D9C5:B6A1 is indeed 155.69.184.1 and 155.69.190.63.

Funny this should come after your refusal to participate in WP:3O and a consensus has been formed.

Have you conveniently forgotten who added this sentence?

:"According to Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Johor Bahru is the second tallest city in the nation after Kuala Lumpur".

IP address simply WP:DONTGETIT. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please solely focus on the content itself instead of making unjustified assumptions on other editors' behavioral aspects. Thanks for your cooperation. 2001:D08:1281:9DB9:8148:6255:D9C5:B6A1 (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conveniently forgetting who added that sentence in the first place. Going against consensus. Funny. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me emphasize again, please focus on the content only. Some administrators have already warned you on your persistent unjustified behaviours in ANI thread, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1173#h-Persistent disruptive behaviour and unsubstantiated MOS:PUFFERY by 155.69.190.63-20241209042200.

Additionally, I would also like the two of you to try to improve the current issues of this list, which is the lack of citations. 2001:D08:1281:9DB9:8148:6255:D9C5:B6A1 (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"persistent unjustified behaviours"? Says who? Here comes more WP:ASPERSIONS.

Look at your own edits, which is the source of this dispute.

Absolutely pointless to discuss any further. Not until penultimate supper has more input. It should be obvious by now for all to see how convoluted this has become. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I hope I won't have to reiterate, please focus on the content itself and try to ameliorate the current issues of this page.

As mentioned by an administrator in ANI thread, "HundenvonPenang, I'm beginning to think the problem lies with you as you are ignoring what is being told to you by multiple people. Admins are advising you how to resolve a content dispute but you won't give up your pursuit of getting this IP editor blocked for what seemed like minor infractions."

I hope that you will take their advice on this instead of making unjustified assumptions on me having connections with other IP address. Thanks. 2001:D08:1281:9DB9:8148:6255:D9C5:B6A1 (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, focus on your own content. Particularly, this: According to Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Johor Bahru is the second tallest city in the nation after Kuala Lumpur.

Conveniently forgetting what caused this dispute in the first place. Funny.

There is nothing more to add to such an unproductive discussion. Not until penultimate supper have their say on this. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I suggested to entirely remove that particular sentence as you can see above, right? Since it seems that any ranking/relationships/competition of Johor Bahru with other cities is not justified at all and we should just focus on the list itself. I was simply trying to reach a consensus between you and the IP address so why is there a need to accuse me and make unjustied assumptions like that? 2001:D08:1281:9DB9:8148:6255:D9C5:B6A1 (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We just have to state the number of buildings in the city surpassing a certain threshold like 100m, 150, 200m, 300m as you can see in other global cities' pages and make sure we are on the same page. There is no need to make any links or relationships between Johor Bahru and other cities, especially when this list is particularly about that Malaysian city, not about its ranking with other cities, do you understand? 2001:D08:1281:9DB9:8148:6255:D9C5:B6A1 (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion by Penultimate supper (talk · contribs): It looks like the IP editor in question has opted to no longer engage in this dispute based on this comment.; Just in the interest of future consensus building, I’ll say that the proposed change by HundenvonPenang makes sense to me, and I support its inclusion in the interest of consistency across similar pages and respecting the time and convenience of the readers of our encyclopedia. This isn’t the page to go into long discussions of the definition of a skyscraper, and while I think it’s ok to use any reasonable definition which can be applied using the verifiable information available—so long as that definition is made explicit—the proposed version avoids issues of inconsistency and limits the need for explanation, letting this list focus on being a list. I think the comparative ranking could also be left out completely—if it proves too controversial—since this list is focused on internal aspects of Johor Bahru, not its relationship/comparison to other cities.; I’ll keep a eye on the page for a while, and if the other editor decides to re-engage and has a rationale for supporting a different proposed change, I’m happy to offer a third opinion under more collaborative circumstances at that time.; Be well! — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)}

Goodness. I've provided a clear third opinion, focused on content, not behavior, and unfortunately that has been used as justification for more WP:HOUNDING and WP:PEPPER towards hundenvonPG. That inappropriate and excessive behavior is coming from another IP editor who claims not to be the same as the previous IP editor, but since the previous IP editor already used shifting IPs as a tactic to drown out opposing views, and this new IP editor displays the same pattern of overwhelming, repetitive, and aggressive communication toward User:HPG, it's hard to imagine we don't have one, continuously intense IP editor.

IP Editor: chill out. State your perspective once, concisely; wait for a response, and then respond to the core argument. Respect other editors, don't try to overwhelm, mislead, or intimidate, all over a single sentence that makes minimal impact. I asked for a 150 word summary of your view of the article, and you provided an over 1500 word rant that never clearly described your view, and lambasted another user instead of the clarity and dispassion I requested. That's not helpful, respectful, or fair to User:HPG or I. Can you honestly claim you're interested in collaboration?

HundenvonPG: I'm sorry my comment inadvertently provided fodder for this behavior. I don't have more to say about the content, and am frankly flabbergasted at the energy being directed your way. I don't think either of you have bad intentions, and the content of your disagreement is one where reasonable minds can disagree, but it's just not nearly as big a deal as it's being made to be, and the other editor is responding in ways that impede any sort of discussion. I don't think there's anything more I can do to help here, and I suggest User:HPG take a break from this article or seek other assistance; I'll keep an eye and try and share my perspective if this issue comes up on notice boards.

Be well. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[britannica-1] "Skyscraper". Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 2016-10-26. Retrieved 25 October 2016.

[VisualDictionary-2] Ambrose, Gavin; Harris, Paul; Stone, Sally (2008). The Visual Dictionary of Architecture. Switzerland: AVA Publishing SA. p. 233. ISBN 978-2-940373-54-3.

[1]

[2]