Talk:Skyscraper

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Home Insurance Building.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hansahochhaus and Ullsteinhaus

Hansahochhaus and Ullsteinhaus are more important than Wilhelm-Marx-Haus in Düsseldorf.

• Hansahochhaus was the tallest skyscraper in Europe for a short period of time.
• Ullsteinhaus was the tallest skyscraper in Germany until the Friedrich Engelhorn Tower was completed in 1957.

Klausk2 (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Collage of images?

I personally think that there should be another building used as the main image of the page, or perhaps a bunch of buildings, rather than the single tallest building in the world. Its sheer height makes it unreflective of the vast majority of skyscrapers that are much shorter. If this article were to have a collage perhaps it could show one building from a particular architectural style, like those shown in the body of the article. LivinAWestLife (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we could just move the gallery at the bottom to the top, and add the Burj Khalifa to it. LivinAWestLife (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The tallest building in the world is definitely a strange choice. It should instead be a relatively average skyscraper, or one of historical importance in coining the term. 98.236.136.205 (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I just went ahead and did it myself, seeing as there's no opposition LivinAWestLife (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Parking

Parking is not an issue? At least I didn't find the word in the article. Taliopo (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

opener photos

A dispute between myself and another editor (Livinawestlife) over what photos to include in the opener for the article has emerged which needs resolving. They had put in a set of photos of skyscrapers to replace a photo of the Burj Khalifa. I objected to this because I found the set contained notable omissions of not just the Burj, but other skyscrapers like the 1WTC and Lakhta Center as well. I had also objected because I found the choice of photos to be based purely on their "personal preference" which I thought was not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I attempted to rectify this by introducing a new set based on an objective metric (height) but they objected. When I asked them to justify why their list was better than mine, they kept shifting the goalpost. Initially, it was because their set "showcases a wider variety of architectural styles". Then it was because my set was "poorly-proportioned" and contained "lower-quality pictures." Then it was because I did not give "a reason to oppose the existing collage". The most recent justification is that their set had "been up here for months." In addition to this, they have been misrepresenting policy, onus in particular. When I told them that it was their responsibility to start this discussion since they - and not me - were "seeking to include disputed content," they responded by saying the onus "is on the person trying to enact a change to an establish page" which I pointed out was a misreading of what the policy says. An uninvolved administrator has now stepped in to tell thetwo of us that we need to use the talk page to resolve this issue, so I have started the resolution process. Mnmen (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Mnmen here. The edits from Livinawestlife should be reverted back. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234 I welcome your input. Out of fairness, I will wait a few more days to see if anybody else has anything to say on this matter before I remove the photos. Mnmen (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

It's been a few days since my last comment and over a week since my opening remarks, but since there has to date been no opposition to what I have said, I have removed the photos. Mnmen (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the montage seemed arbitrary and should have been and now is removed, we should either go back to the tallest, which it was for a very, very long time, or pick an agreed upon objective criteria for any montage. But the criteria, whether simple or more involved, needs to be agreed on in advance, for it to be a consensus montage. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Opening photos (new discussion)

@Mnmen Let me be perfectly clear. You have displayed an unnecessarily hostile and aggressive attitude in your discussion over this matter. You have contributed very little to Wikipedia and this very page with the sole exception of this dispute about the image collage. I regret not partaking in the discussion above, which resulted in a soft consensus of very few editors, so I would like to reopen this discussion now. I find your arguments against the pictures to be baseless and unfounded; a page for objects is naturally meant to have an image, and for a category as diverse as skyscrapers, I would support a collage as being representative of their diversity. I also strongly object to your asinine insinuation that my personal preference for the images had something to do with it. Instead of suggesting buildings you believed merited inclusion, you simply aimed to remove the collage entirely, leaving the lead imageless for months. Now you have decided to reignite this. So, let us discuss this matter on the talk page. LivinAWestLife (talk) 03:59, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I am not Mnmem but you did not need to start a new section. This was discussed above, and you have not responded to that discussion. What is the agreed upon criteria for the montage, so it does not appear arbitrary and without consensus? Was it you that replaced the longstanding image at the top of the article (the tallest current skyscraper, which demonstrates many features of skyscrapers), if so, your edits are very much responsible for there now being no image in the lead (the article, of course is amply illustrated.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I was encouraged by another editor who left a comment on my talk page suggesting that I discuss the issue on the talk page. You can see I did have a section earlier bringing up the topic of a collage and there was an editor in favor, and seeing as I disagree right now, there clearly isn't a strong consensus for what the lead image(s) should be. So I think it's a good idea for us to discuss it then.

Chiefly among those is the world's tallest building is unrepresentative of the vast majority of skyscrapers, which are (obviously) shorter. I don't see why there should be that much discussion over the choice of skyscrapers; if you look at the Wikipedia pages for various structures, their selections would seem arbitrary as well. The intent of the collage was to show a variety of architectural styles from across the planet, but the choice of buildings of course is something that I don't have a strong opinion of. LivinAWestLife (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I was not addressing you commenting, I was pointing out this is a continuation of the issue addressed in the immediate above section so did not need a new section.

The prior longstanding image of the Burj Khalifa shows a tall habitable building with curtain walls and setbacks, so is representative of the topic.

Since you have proposed no objective criteria, we are at an impasse. Collage of buildings we each think are good, has not, and is not likely to lead to agreement, nor is it likely to lead to an encyclopedic solution, readers are not here to find out what editors like. So, again work to objective criteria that can be agreed on. Below, someone appears to be suggesting geography distribution, that is the beginning of a criteria, but surely there are others, including eg. eras (what recognized eras?), or styles (what recognized and recognizable styles?).

Or we could just go back to the long standing one, yes it is the tallest, but it is still representative. That it is the tallest just makes it even more of an exemplar. The subject here is not urban skyline, it is a singular type of structure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I proposed an alternative set based on an objective metric (height) which had been repeatedly removed by LivinAWestLife, but I would be ok with your proposal to reuse the Burj photo too. The bottom line is that LivinAWestLife's set needs to stay out until they can get the consensus that allows for its inclusion into the article. Mnmen (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

The dispute has restarted due to a bad faith edit that you had made. You restored your photo set even though you were aware that there was consensus for its removal prior to your unilateral decision to reinclude it as indicated by your claim that my previous (consensus-implementing) removal of it had left "the lead imageless for months" and the absence of an edit summary in your transgressing edit. Even if you were not aware of the consensus which called for the set's removal, you still would have been aware from our previous disagreement over it that the content had been the subject of an extensive dispute. In that case, you should have followed the onus policy and tried to obtain consensus to restore your set from a talk page discussion first before doing so since it is content that you - and not me - have been "seeking to include." Your other point that "Instead of suggesting buildings you believed merited inclusion, you simply aimed to remove the collage entirely" is so false that I can only similarly describe it as a bad faith assertion. The dispute involved your repeated removals of my photo set which I had introduced as an alternative to yours, so your claim that my goal was to remove your set without offering a replacement is at best a misrepresentation of the situation and at worse a lie. Unless your photo set in comparison to mine can get the consensus that allows for its inclusion, then its exclusion from the article must be the baseline condition from which we must work. Mnmen (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Mnmen, stop with the personal attacks and stick to content. Acroterion (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2026 (UTC)