Talk:Tower

untitled

If skyscrapers aren't considered to be towers, why was the World Trade Center also known as the Twin Towers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.66 (talk) 11:35, July 7, 2004 (UTC)

Skyscrapers notwithstanding, I am more use to considering a tower as being part of a structure, rather than an entire structure. Especially in castle and mock-castle architecture. Perhaps it needs a separate topic. Or perhaps I'll write one. Notinasnaid 14:31, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Surface area

I don't think the statement "however the main concept of towers is to save surface area. " can stand without changes. This argument would never have been applied until the 20th century: before then towers were build for security, piety or ostentation. Even in the 20th century this can only really be applied to tower blocks, not to the many other kinds of tower that continue to be built. And high rise housing frequently achieves a lower population density per surface area because of green space requirements. But there seems some controversy so before deleting this sentence, I will invite comments... Notinasnaid 10:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No comments? I will delete/rewrite as appropriate. Notinasnaid 09:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

taller than wide?

"A tower is a tall man-made structure, always taller than it is wide" . The tower of london is NOT ! Panosfidis 04:58, July 12, 2006‎

This is an important point. The purpose of a tower is to be tall, but it only need to be relatively so. Some of the earliest historical towers were parts of castles and tower houses that could be quite squat structures made of masonry. I also added Tower house to the See Also because I think that is a historically critical use of towers as defensive elements found in many areas. -- M0llusk 05:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that just because something has a name that contains the word "tower" doesn't make it a tower by definition. The appropriate dictionary.com definition advises, "a building or structure high in proportion to its lateral dimensions... ". sag6, 0333, 3 Sep 06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.220.105 (talk) 22:30, September 2, 2006‎ (UTC)

Round Tower at Windsor Castle is also wider than its height. MKleid (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The Tower of London building has multiple towers, such as Beauchamp Tower and Devereux Tower. From the map on its article I count 18 towers, plus the White Tower which itself has four towers. And those actually are taller than wide. 85.217.36.71 (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Article clean-up

I cleaned the article up, removing much of the content that was slanted toward occupied buildings. sag6, 0333, 3 Sep 06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.220.105 (talk) 22:30, September 2, 2006‎ (UTC)

Historical Towers

I'm pretty certain that there are older towers than the Leaning Tower of Pisa - the Tower of London (or its constituent towers) spring to mind, but surely there are other pre-11th century towers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.100.33 (talk) 03:22, July 6, 2007‎ (UTC)

Tower vs building vs skyscraper

I think this is the best place for the ongoing discussion of "world's tallest building" vs "world's tallest tower". The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "tower" given by any dictionary does not conform to the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) definition used in its "world's tallest tower" list. I suggest "tower" be replaced with "CTBUH non-building tower" in all relevant article titles and content. Yes, it's a ridiculously unwieldly phrase, but that is a reflection of the ridiculously unwieldly concept. This discussion affects (at least) the following articles:

1. Tokyo Skytree, purportedly the "world's tallest tower", as distinct from Burj Khalifa, unquestionably the "world's tallest building"
2. list of tallest freestanding structures in the world, which would be the most natural definition of "tower"
3. list of tallest towers in the world, which is copied from the CTBUH list, which is freestanding structures excluding "buildings"
   • Essentially this list is list #2 minus anything in List of tallest buildings in the world. All the information can be provided in one table/article instead of two, by using a sortable table with a column called "habitable?" or some such.
   • There has been repeated questioning on the article's Talk page of its scope and usefulness
4. list of tallest buildings and structures in the world#Tallest structure by category
   • the "Self-supporting tower" category is inappropriate for the Skytree row, given that Burj Khalifa is also self-supporting

In my opinion, the confusion is a result of history and marketing.

• From the Ostankino Tower until the Burj Khalifa, the ordering was clear: the tallest skyscraper was shorter than the tallest freestanding tower, which was shorter than the tallest guyed mast. So it made sense to have three records, conveniently labelled "tallest building", "tallest tower", "tallest structure". Once the Burj was completed, that changed, and the same structure holds all three records. Here is an analogy: for a long time, the world's fastest man has been of African ethnicity; Christophe Lemaitre is the "world's fastest Caucasian", Patrick Johnson the "world's fastest non-African", Usain Bolt the "world's fastest man". If Lemaitre breaks Bolt's record, it will not be the case that the "world's fastest Caucasian" becomes faster than the "world's fastest man"; rather, Lemaitre will hold all three previously mentioned titles, while Bolt will become the "world's fastest non-Caucasian", and Johnson the the "world's fastest man-who-is-neither-purely-Caucasian-nor-partly-African". Likewise, Tokyo Skytree is the tallest freestanding-structure-that-is-not-a-skyscraper (and indeed the tallest structure-that-is-not-a-skyscraper).
• Clearly the owners of the Tokyo Skytree want to be able to label their structure "world's tallest" something. If media repeat their press release, Wikipedia is not required to humour them. Compare the Burj Al Arab article, where its claim to be the world's first 7-star hotel is treated with appropriate distance. Most sources call the Skytree the "world's tallest communications tower" or some such, though of course even that is misleading if the Burj Khalifa has antennae on its roof.
• Even CTBUH's definition of "tower" is not consistent.
  • I was not able to find any explicit definition of "tower" on its website. The "Criteria" page has a section "What is the difference between a tall building and a telecommunications /observation tower?" while the rest of the page uses the word "tower" in descriptions of skyscrapers.
  • Their "world's 50 tallest towers" page excludes "buildings", but its lists of 100 tallest "all-hotel towers", "all-office towers" and "all-residential towers" clearly include buildings.

In conclusion, the definition of "Tower" used in the articles listed above is a violation of WP:SYN. The definition the term "tower" used in a single CTBUH list and various PR for a single structure is misrepresented as a widespread term-of-art appropriate for use in Wikipedia pages.

jnestorius^(talk) 17:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support - The insistence on a meaning of 'tower' derived from the CTBUH list has long mad a nonsense of the relevant pages here. It's an obvious violation of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SYN. If a building like the Burj Khalifa, which has 'tower' ('burj') in its name, and which is obviously a tower in the ordinary dictionary sense, cannot be listed here as the tallest tower, then it is our artificial notion of 'tower' that is wrong. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reject - Part of the problem here is the easy distinction between a skyscraper (or tall building) as defined by the CTBUH, and other kinds of tall structures. The CTBUH calls some these non-skyscrapers "towers", though I will admit their definition of a tower is quite unclear and nowhere near as detailed as their definition of a skyscraper; and they completely ignore other things like masts. I believe the purpose of the distinction is so that the CTBUH (a body which is used by many others as a world authority on such matters) can tell the makers/owners of tall structures like the Tokyo Skytree, Eiffel Tower, or the KVLY TV mast, that their thing doesn't qualify as a skyscraper of the same standing as the Empire State Building, for example.

The puzzling thing is where does that leave skyscrapers that have "tower" in their name, and what about the dictionary definition of tower as being a structure taller then it is wide? It seems to me there is a small number of regular editors who are convinced that 'tower' is a confusing concept when you exclude skyscrapers; while there is a far larger number who either don't care enough to have a opinion or (like me) think tower as defined in the lead of the list is good enough for them.

As with many other lists on Wikipedia, being tough on the list's inclusion criteria could be one solution. That is exactly what I have tried to do for the last few years - removing non-skyscrapers from lists of skyscrapers, removing skyscrapers from lists of towers, removing masts from non-mast lists, an so on. However, renaming lists of towers to be lists of 'CTBUH non-building towers' is certain to be a way to confuse many, many more people, and might also be guilty of WP:SYN.

Perhaps a better solution, rather than creating some artificial divide to define towers, we should have lists of structures containing everything (skyscrapers, freestanding towers, masts, statues, oil platforms, etc.) meeting some criteria like tallest in the world, tallest guyed structures, tallest in Australia, etc. And then have a subset of this just for skyscrapers (something for which we do have a good, reliably referenced definition from the CTBUH). That way we get to keep a List of the Worlds Tallest Skyscraper, while the List of the Worlds Tallest Towers (something for which the current definition is quite poor) is merged into the List of the Worlds Tallest Structures.

Of course, the Tower article itself should remain to talk about things that are taller then they are wide. And list of tallest buildings and structures in the world#Tallest structure by category should also remain because people love to categorise things to find the tallest minaret, dome, monument, flagpole, or whatever.

Astronaut (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of my original post you two are supporting or rejecting. My suggestion that "tower" be replaced with "CTBUH non-building tower" was an introductory gambit, not a serious proposal. The important part is the conclusion the definition of "Tower" used in the articles listed above is a violation of WP:SYN. I think Astronaut and I essentially agree; we have both now proposed merging the list of tallest towers in the world into the list of tallest freestanding structures in the world. jnestorius^(talk) 12:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If that's what's proposed, I support it too - there's an obvious 'skyscraper' category of buildings that are usable floor up (almost) all their height, but apart from that, the important distinctions are (1) tallest human structures of all sorts (2) tallest structures in geographical areas (3) tallest structures of a large number of well-defined types. There's no need for a vague 'not skyscrapers but not the kitchen sink either' class. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

assesment

B class article per ores https://ores.wmflabs.org/v2/scores/enwiki/wp10/803087384 Brock-brac (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Wind turbine towers

Hello User:Robynthehode. Regarding this revert, what is the criteria? The article itself mentions wind turbine towers. Rehman 06:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes you're right wind turbines are mentioned. However I have tried over time to keep the definition in the article page consistent with the one used in the List of tallest towers page. There the definiton excludes towers that 'are not designed for public or regular operational access'. Maybe the definition needs an overhaul in the this article and I am happy to discuss further. As it stands though your photo could be included (but may be removed later if the definition is clarified). Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I agree the definition/criteria must be amended on this article. This article is titled "Tower", and thus must include the broad spectrum of uses. Trimming essential pieces of information based on what is on another completely different article does not make sense IMHO. Please do revert your revert if you don't mind. If it gets removed again (although unlikely), we can discuss further. Thanks, Rehman 07:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Reverted my revert for now. Added text under 'Functions' section to clarify what is included in this article. Robynthehode (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Towers = Non-habital?

The lead currently states "Towers are specifically distinguished from "buildings" in that they are not built to be habitable but to serve other functions." I dislike this statement, I think it is incorrect and should be removed. I can see a kind of difference, a kind of point that is trying to be inferred but it is not a set in stone definition. Some tall structures are referred to as both buildings and towers. Some clearly residential building are often referred to as towers in common language and official name. Grenfell Tower, Tower blocks in Great Britain, Nina Tower, Central Park Tower plus many many more. I understand there is often a reason to build tall things and they are often not habitable/residential. But some tall things called "towers" are residential and habitable.  Carlwev  14:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we use the separate definition of 'tower' and 'building' per Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. This has been discussed at length on various article talk pages and the definition in this article is currently a stable one based on the CTBUH definition. Common names for things in Wikpedia aren't necessarily the ones that are used after editorial discussion and support from reliable sources. Just because a structure is called a tower doesn't mean it is a tower according to the definition used in Wikipedia. If you want to make an argument for a change you will need to support that with reliable sources and follow WP:RS, WP:V. If you would like to discuss this further please do, otherwise the terminology will remain. Robynthehode (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

This article doesn't cite a source for the definition, the discussion further up the page doesn't seem to have come to a clear conclusion, the link to the definition given in that discussion is no longer valid, and having looked on the CTBUH website, I find a different definition that contradicts the one given here: "Building vs. Tower: To be considered a building, at least 50 percent of its height must be occupiable. Telecommunications or observation towers that do not meet the 50 percent threshold are not eligible for inclusion on CTBUH’s “Tallest” lists". Contrary definitions are found at the Oxford Dictionary, which defines "tower" as a type of building: "A tall, narrow building, either free-standing or forming part of a building such as a church or castle" (although their definition of building would exclude some towers: "A structure with a roof and walls, such as a house or factory"). The Wikipedia article for Building matches the dictionary definition. Given all this, I would say at the very least the article needs to state that there are more than one definition of "tower". I'm also not convinced that just because the CTBUH excludes towers with less than 50% occupiability from their "tallest buildings" list necessarily means that a tower by definition isn't a building and isn't built to be habitable. Iapetus (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Wardog. I think that your querying the lack of a source for the defintion has some validity and may need changing. However Wikipedia articles on towers, buildings and structures are based on CTBUH criteria for those categories. The reason being it is the most reliable source. They have a specific definition that then accords with how they distinguish between the categories of structure for the purpose of comparing heights. CTBUH is a far more reliable source than a dictionary and Wikipedia although sometimes referencing a dictionary definition should not rely on it, especially when there is a reliable source that is more specific. I also think you have misunderstood the categorisations. Across Wikipedia there is a general category 'Structures' which includes all human made structures that includes guyed structures (radio masts etc), media supported structures (oil rigs) and self supporting structures. The last of these 'self supporting structures' is divided into 'buildings' (over 50% occupiable - skyscrapers etc), 'towers' (less than 50% occupiable); both these being accessible to the public and 'other self supporting structures' (chimneys, bridge pylons). This is a stable categorisation and would need a lot of unpicking with major changes to many articles if the (less than perfect) current categorisations were to be changed. So towers are not buildings according to this current arrangement but they are structures. You can see from the associated CTBUH lists that they divide self supporting structures into these two main categories (they don't deal with guyed structures or non-habitable structures in their categorisation) http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/buildings?list=tallest-towers . CTBUH has changed its description recently and this has caused issues with the referencing. Happy to see additional reliable sources for the current categories or a suggestion for a different categorisation arrangement but as I said this will require extensive work and prior to that consensus to allow for the changes to be made. Robynthehode (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)