Talk:Petronas Towers

Active discussions

On 4 September 2008, this talk page was linked from 2channel, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)


How did the architect complete the design in 1998 but the Spiderman scaled the tower in 1997? SilentOpen 04:39, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe Alain Robert can't wait till the towers to be completely finished so he climbed earlier. Izzudin 10:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably a typo, probably meant 1988.

Wow, are the towers that old?


Some photos [1] show contrast between the bright and dark towers. And I heard the tower constructed by Hazama gains favor but the other by Samsung does not. Is it true or just a rumor? --Nanshu 04:25, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To me at least the first picture in the link looks like the right tower happens to be in the right position/angle to reflect sunlight, while the left one is not... Jpatokal 08:22, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I meant night scenes [2][3][4] --Nanshu 03:23, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[2] and [4] are both dead links and in [3], they look the same to me. Hmm, could it be that you think the Hazama tower is better than the Samsung tower because Hazama is Japanese and Samsung is Korean? No, of course Nanshu would never think that Japan is better than Korea, so I must be wrong. --Sewing 19:27, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't have paranoid thoughts and neither do you, I hope. I just want to verify the rumor.
Also, [2] and [4] aren't dead. They kick out requests from remote sites. --Nanshu 04:00, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sewing, Nanshu is one of the most conservative Japanese I've ever seen from his articles. His so called NPOVness hides the POVed strategy of emphasizing pro-Japan materials and ommitting con-Japan ones. :)

Removed the following. Please cite:

In the wake of the controversy that its claim generated the rules were overhauled,

What were they overhauled to?

but many still do not accept the claim. Who? Cite or perish --Malbear 09:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"and are entirely devoted to office space"

Removed as the petroleum club on the podium is not an office.

Removed this section as it should probably go to wikitravel. Additionally, the wikitravel search box seems broken so didn't do an add there. Can someone who has the patience to figure out what's wrong kindly.....

TUESDAY TO SUNDAY 9:00 am - 5.00 pm.
Visit to the Skybridge is CLOSED for Friday Prayer from 1:00 pm - 2:30 pm.

CLOSED for maintenance except on a Public Holiday.

School Holiday Period (Half Day Operations) 9:00 am - 12:00 noon

OPEN || 9:00 am - 5.00 pm, with the exceptions of :

Eid Al-Fitri (a festival at the end of 'Ramadhan' / fasting month) Closed for 4 days
Eid Al-Adha (a festival at the end of 'Hajj' / annual pilgrimage season) Closed for 1 day

Admission is free. Tickets are limited and issued daily on a "first-come-first-served" basis. Ticket Counter opens at 8:30am and located at : PETRONAS Twin Towers Visit Centre, Tower 2, Concourse Level, PETRONAS Twin Towers, Kuala Lumpur City Centre, 50088 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

  • Cleaned up and spun Suria KLCC stuff out to its own page. Dan100 01:36, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)


Why is it PETRONAS Twin Towers, and not Petronas Twin Towers? Are they yelling out the name?--Jerryseinfeld 15:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering that, but upon checking their coporate website I see that PETRONAS is capitilized throughout. A valid edit, I guess. Dan100 16:33, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Nah, lots of companies "insist" in bizarre capitalizations. We certainly are under no obligation to obey them, especially when they are so strange looking. I'm changing these all back to something less loud. Nohat 10:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
PETRONAS is an acronym, like e.g. NATO. We don't write it as Nato, do we? It's not just a shorthand, it's a trademark, used in all official PETRONAS documents and publications. I work here, so I know how it's supposed to be spelled. As a side note, you might find that even the Malaysian media writes it as Petronas, but that's only because they're ignorant. In PETRONAS's press releases, it's always written as PETRONAS, not Petronas. You might think PETRONAS looks strange, but to me, Petronas looks strange, and PETRONAS looks proper. --Aidfarh 02:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[Formerly] World's tallest buildingEdit

The article specifies that the PETRONAS towers were once the worldest tallest building, but there was clear controversy regarding the InfoBox being that of World's Tallest Buildings. I (obviousy from that history record) would say it should be, as the spires were once highest, and it was often reffered to as the world's tallest building. -Sean Hayford O'Leary 15:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the right reason, and the same one as to why the Chrysler Building was once the World's Tallest. Architectural spires are a design issue and smoothly integrated into the building. IT's also the height at which the Empire State Building is recorded. The controversy stems from poeple wishing to change the rules to make sure they keep or acquire the record, that they should not otherwise hold. If it was good enough for all the years that the Empire State Building was Tallest, then it should be good enough now.

The picture showing building comparisons is unfair as it shows the height of the Sears Tower including the antennas. Official building height comparisons include spires (such as on the Chrysler Building) but not antennas (such as on the Sears Tower). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, i guess when Shanghai World Financial Center is completed in about June now, KLCC will drop to third place instead of second place, according to tallest buildings in the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In the diagram that compares the buildings to other buildings, the WTC is clearly taller than Petronas, despite it saying that Petronas was tallest from 98-04. If you don't count antennas, WTC still appears taller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Skybridge PictureEdit

On a recent trip to Malaysia i took a picture from the 41st floor of the skybridge. The article is looking a little messy from other images, so if someone wants to place it in, please feel free. Image:SkyBridge.JPG. Thanks, --Ali K 12:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Nevermind, i managed to find the time to do it myself. --Ali K 12:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Page TitleEdit

Can someone please tell me what's the logic of using the title Petronas Towers instead of PETRONAS Twin Towers? PETRONAS Twin Towers is the official name of the building, and also used in the addresses of all the occupants of the buildings. --Aidfarh 02:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since the article has been moved back and forth a couple times, you should probably follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves for requesting a page move. Rhobite 02:52, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
I'd oppose a move. Article titles should use the most usual form of the name, and in this case that's lower-case. If even the local media are unaware of the "correct" name, then it's clearly not widely used. Mark1 03:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Petronas Twin Towers. —Nightstallion (?) 12:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested MoveEdit

I support and had requested the move to PETRONAS Twin Towers. In my opinion, articles in encyclopedias should be named according to the official names of something. Check out the official website of the PETRONAS Twin Towers: The term "Petronas Twin Towers" is more widely used in the local media though, but not "Petronas Towers". See the following examples:

Safe options in managing waste - The Sun ...Malaysians generated in excess of 7.3 million tonnes of garbage, enough to fill 4 2 Petronas Twin Towers, as one famous example has it.

Use of force against demonstrators: 'Policemen have the right to defend themselves' - New Straits Times ...Opposition politicians gathered near the Petronas Twin Towers to protest against price increases in electricity and fuel.

'Cars' goodies up for grabs - The Star ... PetroSains Speed in Kuala Lumpur's Petronas Twin Towers and experience the science of racing.

What is your opinion, "Support" or "Oppose"?

EDIT: Due to the outcome of the votes, I changed the request to "Petronas Twin Towers". Please vote below. - Knowhow

VOTES: Requested Move: Petronas Towers → Petronas Twin TowersEdit

This time, "PETRONAS" is not fully capitalized. Share your opinions below.

  • SUPPORT by nominator. Reasons are given above. - Knowhow

VOTES: Requested Move: Petronas Towers → PETRONAS Twin TowersEdit

  • OPPOSE "PETRONAS" is like a surname where surnames are completely capitalized, whereas in Wikipedia, this does not happen. 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: "PETRONAS" is an acronym (well, more of a combination of parts of two words): Petroliam Nasional [5]. Therefore, it may be acceptable as all caps. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose No need to follow those marketing people and capitalise the name. I don't oppose against adding the "twin" though. -- H005 22:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Captialization (marketing trick as per H005), ok with twin. ~ trialsanderrors 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The capitalization is not needed, but as before, I am fine with the addition of the word "twin". It's just that in popular lingo, far more instances of "Petronas" are seen rather than "PETRONAS", especially in non-Malaysian media. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 01:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose all caps, Support move to Petronas Twin Towers. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) says "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment". "Official" names have never been a deciding factor for the naming of Wikipedia articles. The core naming principle is "use common names"—see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)—not "use official names". Note also that Petronas is different from, say, NATO, because in NATO, each letter stands for something (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), but in Petronas, only the P and N are initials, so it doesn't make any sense to capitalize the whole thing. One might make an argument for PetroNas, but no one spells it that way, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) explicitly says "don't invent new formats". "Twin" is ok, as "petronas twin towers" gets more Google results than "petronas towers". Nohat 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Evacuation on 12 Sep 2001Edit

The bomb hoax on 12 Sep 2001 is real enough, I remember this from a Discovery/NatGeo documentary on the prospects of tall buildings after 9/11. The towers were built so that one tower would serve as the backup for the other, and the response to the hoax showed that the buildings cannot be evacuated on time simultaneously. The revised escape plans call for using elevators if both buildings need to be evac'ed. Jpatokal 07:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Leaning tower of PetronasEdit

I heard in a documentary that one of the towers (not sure which one) was built leaning about a thumb's width from being vertical. When they discovered this at about 2/3rd's the way through the building process of whichever tower, they decided to simply build the rest vertically. Can anyone confirm this and find any citations?--H.M.S Me 19:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

'Petronas Twin Towers, National Geographic Channel Broadcast.'[6] (Video : 36:02~36:13) "25mm problem....Tower 1(Japanese built) wasn't straight." Japanese don't like this fact. They made false rumors about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes, this is true. --Pavithran 18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this is discussed further down the page (Tower 2(Samsung C&T Corporation) ran into problems) Epak (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As long as I know, it was not the tower 1 but the tower 2 that was found leaning and was being built by Samsung. The news article written in Korean is apparently wrong. Please show some other sources that are to be convincing to everybody.-- (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
maybe you believe Japanese 2 channel source. The 2ch kenkan article written in Japan is apparently wrong. it is fully fabrication. Please show some other sources that are to be convincing to everybody. not rumor. Manacpowers (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hazama Corporation is in charge of constructing Tower 1 [7][8][9]
  • According to both a National Geographic documentary and a Korean newspaper, the builders of Tower 1, (Japan), ran into problems when they discovered the structure was 25 millimeters off from vertical.
    • Petronas Twin Towers, Metroseoul newspaper.[10](in Korean) Hazama Corporation (Japan) has worked on 'Tower 1' and they found serious problem. The building was leaning 25mm on the ground. While Japanese fix this problem, Koreans fully completed building without problem.
    • Petronas Twin Towers, National Geographic Channel Broadcast.[11] (Video : 36:02~36:13) "25mm problem....Tower 1 wasn't straight."
Manacpowers (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

^ Tim Bunnell (1999). "The Petronas Twin Towers and/in contesting visions of development in contemporary Malaysia, “rumor about leaning”". Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography: 1-23. Retrieved on 2008-07-24.

This dilemma was, in turn, resolved by another popular rumour circulating during my doctoral fieldwork in 1997. It could only be Japanese tower 1, since South Korean-built tower 2 was said to be “leaning”. The rumour has numerous possible connotations.
It is not necessary source. rumor is just rumor. also it was not a fact. Manacpowers (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Manacpowers (talk) was banned for abusive use of multiple account. We should correct what he concerned , it is leaning to one's side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The current sources for this information are biased or not relevant, it should not figure in this article.
- "" is a travel blog talking about how Tower 2 is currently leaning (which is not the topic here and is an info found nowhere else) and is not sourced. The second one is..a post on twitter, whose source is a Japanese nationalist blog. The post has been deleted since. The third one is also a blog article based on the first source which also talks about how the Tower 2 is leaning now and threatens to collapse and how he "doesn't know the truth"...
-On the other hand the foreman of Tower 1 explains in a National Geographic Channel documentary ( that there were rumors that Tower 1 (not 2) was leaning, this University paper ( also talks about "rumors" with "connotations" and this 1999 article ( from a Malaysian newspaper talks also about rumors later proven false. --Nuotzi (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that sources are in considerable disagreement over which tower had the issues. I've contacted someone I know who's knowledgeable about this field (skyscraper construction) so we'll see if he can find any good reliable sources on this. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Appearances in mediaEdit

I might be wrong, but I'm fairly certain these towers appear in an episode of the anime "Cowboy Bebop", in which a maniacal bomber with a teddy bear theme attempted to blow up two towers which looked highly similar to these, complete with the connecting bridge.

I suspect those were DILLIGAF Twin Towers. Jpatokal 08:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article does not seem to provide information as to how much it cost to construct the towers. Is this information not published? Johnleemk | Talk 12:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Rising Star?Edit

I read somewhere, maybe in a magazine or something, that these buildings are also known as the "Rising Star(s)." There's not a single reference of this anywhere. Am I mistaken or this reference true somewhere? Eridani 01:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard that, and I worked at the Towers for half a year. Jpatokal 01:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

2005 to 2090Edit

last edit changed the elevator drill year from 2005 to 2090.. vandalism I guess but I'm too newbie here to even attempt fixing it (sorry!). please fix and wipe this comment. 02:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


There are a lot of vandalisms happened in this article.. as much as they happened in Malaysia --Izzudin 17:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested moveEdit

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Petronas Twin TowersPetronas Towers — Most commonly referred to without the "Twin".--Húsönd 00:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose- Petronas Twin Towers is more common than merely Petronas Towers. As noted in the voting before, Petronas Twin Towers has more hits in Google search than Petronas Towers. Furthermore, the official website uses the word twin, so it also has an official sanctity. --Zack2007 00:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, a Google search for "Petronas Towers" has more results [12] than a search for "Petronas Twin Towers" [13].--Húsönd 00:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
      • 3 thousand more Husond. It is not like there were 400000 ghits for "Petronas Towers" and 200000 ghits for "Petronas Twin Towers." --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Google reports almost exactly numbres the same for the two phrases, so the one used on their website (and the current title) is preferred. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 06:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Tower 1(Japanese built) ran into problemsEdit

According to petronas twin towers documentary on national geographic channel[14] and Korean Newspaper.[15]

Tower 1(Japanese built) ran into problems when they discovered the structure was 25 millimeters off from vertical.
Heavypaper 02:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be contention (or confusion) as to which tower ran into problems. I read the metroseoul article and it looks credible enough. But I have also read other websites where it was quote as Tower 2 having had that (same) problem. For instance here. Can anyone find weigh in on the matter? Epak (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

link is dead. and that source is clear. Manacpowers (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
There is archive from [16] I think this source is a reliable than Koreans'.

This is called Koreate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Japanese just can't accept the fact and deny it.

The problem happened on the Tower 1, not Tower 2. Robert Pratt evidenced it on the National Geographic Channel, who was a foreman of the Tower 1.[[17]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Tower 1 ran into problems. not Tower 2 according to [18] item no.7

39th and 40th floorsEdit

The article says they are not accessible as office space. So what IS there? It should be added to the article if known. --Frank Lofaro Jr. 16:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious to know how you get from floors 41/42 to 43/44. Escalators? What about the stairs?JPBarrass (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Height of upmost observation deckEdit

In which height, is the highest observvation deck of Petronas Twin Towers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The skybridge is the highest observation deck. --Shorty23sin (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


I remember that an architectural engineering professor once told us in a lecture that the two contractors (samsung and hazama) were made to compete against each other, and the contractor that built the tower first would be given the contract for the skybridge. (I also looked it up and found an article to substantiate the prof's claim:

So, the part about the skybridge being constructed by Kukdong Engineering & Construction must be wrong. This is also helped by the official KLCC web page that asserts that it was done, in fact, by Samsung Heavy Industries. I am not sure, however, if it was Samsung Heavy Industries. There are two Samsung Engineering & Construction divisions, one under Samsung Corporation and one under Samsung Heavy Industries. I was under the impression that it was the one under Samsung Corporation that was in charge of the bridge, but I could (probably) be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epak (talkcontribs) 01:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm new to this editing and discussion business in wikipedia. How long do people usually wait after writing something in the discussion (as I just did) until I decide to edit the actual page? Oh, and I just learned how to sign. :) Epak (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And one more question (sorry): do I have to check this discussion page occasionally, or am I automatically informed?! Epak (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Tower CalapusEdit

hey there wats up me chillin how are you fine i hope just want to say Hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Top floors not in use due to safety?Edit

I have heard that the top floors (I think the top quarter) of both towers are empty and not in use. Reason is, that they can not evacuate the top floors in time. Is this true? If yes this would be useful information in this article. Thanks! --Shorty23sin (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Statistical inconsistancies re: Sears Tower.Edit


Sears Tower: Antenna/Spire 527 m Roof 442 m

Petronas Towers: Antenna/Spire 451.9 m Roof 378.6 m

527 > 451.9

442 > 378.6

Unless I'm suffering from an early onset of Alzheimer's the Sears Tower is, unarguably, taller than the Petronas Towers. If the honour of world's tallest building is decided by factors other than being the world's tallest building (because that would make so much sense), this should be unambiguously noted as should the controversy behind it. I'm suspecting that some ultra-patriotic Malaysian might be responsible. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Going by Sears Tower, it sounds like spires count towards height, but antennas do not, as they are not considered architectural features. Either way, this should be clarified.--Terrillja talk 20:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
It has been clarified; in great detail, right here at List of tallest buildings in the world#Ranking criteria and alternatives. I won't bother explaining as it is all very well explained there.
In short, Petronas' spire height (spire's count) of 452 m is greater than Sears' roof height (antennas do not count) of 442 m. --timsdad (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe this image will help to clarify things a bit. --timsdad (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, despite common sense interpretation of 'building height' which can be seen from the above graphic, the PETRONAS Towers took advantage of the technicalities of the definition of 'structure' to claim the titles. In my opinion, even the old World Trade Centre twin towers were taller. To me, the PETRONAS towers were never the tallest building nor the tallest twin towers. But that's my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes from unregistered userEdit

The two most recent edits to this article (coming from an unregistered user) do not seem to be warranted.

The edit at 19:19, 29 June 2009 changes the "Taipei 101" to "Burj Dubai" without any reason that I can think of. Was the editor trying to imply that the Burj Dubai is the only tower to surpass the Petronas Twin Towers? In this same edit, the Petronas Twin Towers are said to be the "...second tallest twin buildings in the world after the completion of Burj Dubai in Dubai in September of this year." It seems that here the editor was confused. The sentence was correct before the edit. The Petronas Twin Towers remain the tallest twin buildings in the world.

The edit at 19:20, 29 June 2009, adds the words "was not built" after the Burj Dubai link, implying that the Burj Dubai has not been built. This edit seems to be simple vandalism.

Unless someone has an objection, I will undo these two edits.

Falochan (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm undoing the edits mentioned above as of now. Falochan (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Twin Towers"Edit

The lead claims they are just known as the "Twin Towers". Could someone explain where exactly this is in the case? Is it locally, or perhaps throughout Asia? In the US, at least, "Twin Towers" definitely still means the twin World Trade Center towers. I'll put a clarify tag on the "Twin Towers" claim here in the lead. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody associated the name "Twin Towers" alone with them, but you'll definitely find lots of references to the "Petronas Twin Towers" all over the place. Jpatokal (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Site of Worlds highest BASE Jump from a skyscraper ?Edit

Someone add info to this fact in the pop culture section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talkcontribs) 19:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"known as KLCC" - debateableEdit

KLCC refers almost exclusively to the shopping center attached to the base of the towers, and not the towers themselves.

Many malaysians would never refer to the petronas towers as KLCC, nor would they refered to KLCC as "the towers" or "the petronas towers". (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)MS90

  • that may be so point well taken, but please also reference wp:commonname. --emerson7 07:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Attention admins pleaseEdit

There has been a massive rewrite of the page e.g. the History section in the last few days, but not all of it seems constructive, e.g. questionable constructs such as

  • Petronas Towers was officially groundbreaking on 1 January 1992 after rigorous tests and simulations of wind and structural loads on the design after seven years of construction and became the tallest buildings in the world.
  • Petronas Towers was officially excavators began digging down 30-metres below the surface of the site on 18 January 1993.
  • Petronas Towers was officially building of construction on 1 January 1995 by the skybridge of the Petronas Towers is opened to public.

There may be some useful changes done, though it's lost in the reorganisation.

Would it be a good idea for an admin to temporarily lock the page to take stock of what should be kept and otherwise?

Thanks! cmɢʟee 12:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, cmglee. Protecting the article should be a last resort. It would be helpful if you could source your timeline and gain some consensus here for its inclusion. I note that this page is slightly inactive, so you may consider posting messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Malaysia and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture so that the opinion of other editors can be solicited. Be sure to word your posts on those pages as neutrally as possible. Regards Tiderolls 15:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Follow-up. I have looked at the article revision history closer and it appears the IP has been edit warring to keep their version of the article. As they have done so without discussion and their edits have been removing cited content (not to mention they have no concept of the MOS), I will revert and protect for a short period. I still recommend that you attempt to gain more opinions on the history section as explained above. Regards Tiderolls 15:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Contents doublingsEdit

The article contains several doublings: In the chapter HISTORY concerning the concrete pour, in the chapter SKYBRIDGE sliding attachment to the towers. These should be removed to ease the reading. Hhwg (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Clean-up and content movesEdit

References to the towers in film and TV do not belong in "Notable events" so I created a separate pop-culture section. I also cleaned up wording for grammar and English, removed some irrelevant references, and also stripped out the two IMDb references as Wikipedia does not consider IMDb to be a reliable source. I also removed the reference to Entrapment filming the climax at the Skybridge as I believe a studio recreation was used for that purpose. (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Petronas Towers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Return to "Petronas Towers" page.