This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Skyscraper article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Skyscrapers Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Civil engineering Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCivil engineering Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]