Talk:List of buildings taller than 400 metres

Notable[edit]

I'm not sure whether this article passes for notability. Please see this discussion. --timsdad ^(talk) 10:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major changes[edit]

As I pointed out here, a change I made yesterday was reverted. I provided an adequate edit summary, but it did not help, and I was forced to go and do it all again manually rather than revert to my version again. Now that I've made a new set of changes, similar to the ones I made yesterday, here's a list of all the changes I made and why to try and prevent this from happening again:

Captions in images - fixed punctuation and removed date links per mosnum.
Rewrote lead section - changed towers to skyscrapers as the definition of a tower is not what these buildings are. Changed some links, removing date links.
Removed history section - a history of tallest skyscrapers (and a more in depth one at that) is in List of tallest buildings in the world. The list contained buildings that are not over 400 metres in height, and as the creator of this page pointed out in this discussion, the sole purpose of the article is to "ease readers to find which towers are taller than 400 meters".
Fixed captions in completed buildings gallery - punctuation and capitalisation fixes.
Removed galleries for under-construction and on-hold sections - all the images used in these galleries are fair-use and have non-free use media rationales for certain articles. They cannot be displayed in this article without one.
Removed references:

SkyscraperPage - double-up.
ArabianBusiness - this wiki article is not about Nakheel Tower, and does therefore not need a news reference for it.

Removed external links:

Emporis - already linked in references.
Structurae - these lists only contain buildings, and a structure site would confuse readers as to why there are no non-building structures in this article.
Google Earth placemarks - there is no need for this in a Wikipedia article.
The World's Tallest Buildings - we already have an Emporis list, and this list contains buildings under 400m. It also appears not to be a reliable source.
SkyscraperCity poll - this is bordering on linkspam.

Removal of spaces throughout article - we don't create big gaps in the article's text by adding torrents of spaces in the editing box.

That about sums it up. If there's anything you'd like to know, please reply here. Thanks, timsdad ^(talk) 08:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with the changes you have made.

Colossal (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images in the table[edit]

I don't think having images in the table is a very good idea... It clutters up the table and it may not appear as easy to read on smaller screens. If images for every building really are needed at all, they should be in a gallery below the table. --timsdad ^(talk) 23:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But i my point of view its looks nice and it will help the readers to know about which building they are reading about.Well if a image gallery is added soitwill be rather to big i mean it will have 13 photos which according to me will looks awful !

Colossal (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again, this is my reasoning for wanting more opinions on this matter. If it looks better in most peoples' opinion, why does every single other buildings list not contain images of each building in the table itself? They either have the images in thumbnails along the right-hand side, or they have no images at all! --timsdad ^(talk) 13:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i am in favour of more opinions, you should see the article List of tallest buildings in New York City the table of this article contains images.Infact all 52 skyscrapers which are taller than 200 meters in this article have images. I think that imgaes in the tables looks good because if we place images in thumbnails along the right-hand side then it will looks preplex as the table will shrink at the left side.So i will go with the same status of the article.

Colossal (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images: Short(ish) lists--good Long lists--bad 200 pictures of buildings even 1 inch tall will be about 17 vertical feet of article.

In my opinion, it'd look better if the images were in the right column, the cells were uniformly sized, and there has to be some way of cutting down on the verticality of the thing, pardon the pun. Are there any more columns that can be added? Could meters and feet be seperated? Crop out needle-thin tops (Petronas) and setback-less nondistinctive middles (i.e. IFC) to better conserve image aspect ratio? NGC 2009 10:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if we place images in the right side og the article then the tale will shrink which will lokks awful and thats the main thing , i am opposed to. There are only 13 buildings so the lists is not rather too long like that of new york.So we can place images in the table.

Colossal (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant have the rightmost column (Built) and picture column (Images) switch places. For some reason I think the New York list looks good with the photos on the midleft but taller than 400 meters with photos on the right. Of course this list is not too long, I was just thinking of tallest buildings in the world, how long it would look if it had pictures.. This list looks somewhat rough draft-ish though, even if there were more members. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]