File talk:BurjDubaiHeight.png

otrs:1082595 contains a complaint about this image, stating this is a copyright violation of this image. However the information contained in the image is non-unique and illustrated in a common format. In an attempt at compromise the order of the buildings has been reversed. If there are any problems feel free to contact OTRS agent Riana. Thanks, ~ Riana ⁂ 23:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the order simply renders this image misleading and useless. It's much better to simply prepare an entire new chart than to publish something misleading, which is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I intend to propose this image for deletion unless this can be addressed promptly. Sorry, but this is not a good "compromise". --MCB 11:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see anything distinctive enough about this image to be copyrightable. While the individual building images used in the SkyScraperPage.com image may be copyrightable. this image only uses silhouettes. The layout (side by side, in order, with a scale) is too obvious and mundane to be copyrightable.
On an editorial note, I would remove Canary Wharf; it is not as notable as the others, and does not improve the representation of how much tall Burj Dubai is compared to other buildings that have been the tallest in the world. —MJBurrage • TALK • 17:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this diagram (and it's predecessor that skyscraperpage.com originally complained about). I was somewhat annoyed that, when the copyright violation was received, the policy appeared to be delete the offending image without any discussion or notification at all. On contacting the deleting administrator, it was apparent it was a case of either lose the image completely, or come up with some modifications to keep the lawyers happy. Following discussions with Riana, we decided that I would change the diagram to what it is now. However, that is all in the past now.

As for MCB's concerns, I disagree. The current diagram is still providing a useful comparison of building heights in a clear and easily understood format - it's not perfect but it's hardly an "embarrassment to Wikipedia".

I agree with MJBurrage's first comment, and I believe Riana and I came to essentially the same conclusion - but as I said before, it was either change it or lose it. As for the inclusion of Canary Wharf, I have already commented on that.

Astronaut 11:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd?

The scale shows sears tower taller than Tapei 101, or dont antenas count? --Armanalp (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei 101 is 449 m to the roof, 509 m to the top of the spire.

Sears Tower is 442 m to the roof, 527 m to the top of the aerials.

The diagram is ordered by roof height.

Astronaut (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the way that they measure total building heights, spires count, antennae do not. BBnet3000 (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is another building in shanghai(China),it's 496m.is it the fifth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.76.220.158 (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram was created long before Shanghai World Financial Center was anywhere near it's current height. When Burj Dubai offically opens later this year, I'll be updating the diagram to reflect Burj Dubai's comparison to the tall buildings open at that time. Astronaut (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CN Tower

CN Tower in Toronto is 2nd tallest building/strcuture in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.129.109 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 April 2008 Comment moved from main image page. Astronaut (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram compares skyscrapers (buildings), not structures. The CN Tower is a stucture, not a building. Astronaut (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That said, less than a month later, I updated the diagram to include CN Tower and KVLY-TV mast which have been extensively mentioned in the Burj Dubai article. Astronaut (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]