User talk:Leitmanp/Archive 5

Buildings between 600-650 meters

Please show me the rule where it says that there has to be a certain number of structures in a category and please tell me how many structures have to be over 600 meters to count as a category.Maldek (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to do. Below I have given my response and below that is your response that you previously gave me. I think there is misunderstanding.

-There is not only one structure taller than 600 meters. There are atleast 10 or 20 structues in the category. You misunderstand, I am not creating a whole new section for buildings greater than 650 meters. I am creating a category for structures BETWEEN 600 AND 650 METERS. There already exists atleast 20 structures that are between 600 and 650 meters. I am just keeping with the pattern, by saying 600 to 650 meters instead of over 600 meters. I am not talking about buildings greater than 650 meters. I am talking about structures between 600 and 650 meters.

You said: Maldek, the reason I reverted you edit is because it would be really wierd to only have one building in a section. There is no point to create a whole new section for structures greater than 650 m if there is only one. Once there is a reasonble number of buildings greater than 600 m, then we can create a "Greater tan 650 m" section. Also, the Burj Dubai has not even risen above 650 m yet, so there is no point to get the section titles ready for that yet. I will open a discussion about this at Talk:List of tallest structures in the world so other users can voice their opinion. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldek (talk • contribs) 05:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Miscellaneous comments

Hello Leitmanp. For the Miami list, the diagram links in the notes are the references. However, I will add this reference to the skyscraper article, as obviously notes would not be appropriate there.

As for List of tallest buildings in Los Angeles, I can assure you from experience as a reviewer at WP:GAR that two references are not better than one in all cases; some editors frown on so-called "over-referencing", and believe that articles such as Sakurajima with references on nearly all lines shouldn't even meet the GA criteria. For the main tallest buildings tables, two references are usually suitable, as the "Notes" provide some information that may be covered in either only the Emporis or only the SkyscraperPage ref, and the sources can contradict. But in the timeline section, I don't think they are really necessary. First of all, many of the buildings are already located in the main list, so repeating both references would be redundant. Only the SkyscraperPage refs provide the information for the street addresses (which were not given in the first table), so that is why SkyscraperPage refs are used and Emporis ones are not. In addition, there is no "Notes" section, and all of the parameters in the timeline section (save for the "Years as tallest", which is easily distinguishable from the information present) are covered by the SkyscraperPage reference. So, while including both would be easy, it may not be the best solution; when "over-referencing" can be avoided, it probably should; two refs are not needed when a single, reliable, neutral one does the job fine.

As for the tallest buildings in California, it turns out we were both originally wrong; there are 8 buildings as you said, not 7 or 9. I also used a SkyscraperPage diagram, but measured by pinnacle height instead of official height accidentally, so the antennae of 345 California Center in San Francisco pushed that building into the top 10. My apologies; I have changed the article to "8".

And I think that creating tallest building lists for all of the cities with buildings in the top 50 in the world is a great idea. Hydrogen Iodide has already created building lists for all of the major cities in the PRC, but featuring those lists will be a challenge as almost none of the buildings have articles. Still, your idea is a great goal that can be reached. Cheers, Rai•me 00:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood. The information added to the skyscraper article was about Miami being the 3rd-largest skyline in the United States, so I assumed that was the information you were referring to on the List of tallest buildings in Miami page. But yes, I would be happy to add references to the notes; here again, it is just the diagrams that are used. I would tend to agree about the "too many references" argument being strange, but there are many editors who believe this. I was actually criticized by a few users at WP:GAR for adding "too many" sources to Presidio of Santa Barbara... luckily, for that specific article, those editors were not in the majority. But in the timeline section, I can see the merit in the argument, given that the majority of the sources are already provided in above sections.

And you shouldn't feel guilty at all. If you had worked on every building list FL, then WP:DUBAI would not have "gotten off the ground" as fast as it did, as you would not have been able to edit Dubai articles as much. Your work in that area is much appreciated. But, it would be great to have you help with more lists; your work on the Los Angeles list has certainly been great. But yes, with your help, I believe that goal would be easily attainable. Cheers, Rai•me 03:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

UAE map

Sure, no problem. Aquintero (talk) 18:22; 13 May, 2008 (UTC)

weirdness

no problem. I hadn't even noticed that. DaronDierkes (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Al Burj; Lighthouse Tower; & Al Sharq Tower

Al Burj is almost started for construction. I see the forum in SkyscraperCity that building at #APPROVED: TALL TOWER (aka Al Burj). Lighthouse Tower is now groundbreaking on March 17, 2008. Same with Al Sharq Tower, I looked the status on that two buildings. If Lighthouse Tower and Al Sharq Tower are not yet groundbreaking, please edit those two towers and you can back those to approved to stop reverting edits except Al Burj, if not looking for the images since the first page that I given you in the external links. THANKS!!! Unknownquinones (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Just, please, edit Lighthouse Tower and Al Sharq Tower, OK, to stop reverting edits, man. THANKS!!! Unknownquinones (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Saad rabia's edits at Burj Dubai

Hi, Leitmanp, welcome back. I have to revert edit Saad rabia except May 12, 2008 on the Timeline of events. Please, edit the article and the current height is 649.7 meters as of May 20, 2008. THANKS!!! Unknownquinones (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Burj Dubai- Emaar is unreliable, outdated and Inaccurate

You say that Emaar is a reliable source but if you go to the official website the height is still 629.0 meters but you quote a height of 636 meters which does not appear on the Burj Dubai offical website. I understand that this 636 meters is on an article that Emaar released but although it says 636 meters it also says 2,064 feet not 2,087. Obviously Emaar said 636 meters and 2,064 feet but you put 2,087 feet so you are putting up false information. Another thing is that both Emaar sources conflict with each other as one says 629 meters and another says 636 meters. Since Emaar obviously does not know the conversion between feet and meters and they quote different heights on different sites they are unreliable as a source. It doesn't even say when the tower reached 636 meters. It just says the tower is over 636 meters and Emaar does not even list 636 meters on their offical Burj Dubai site. On top of that they claim the tower is both 636 meters and 2,064 feet right next to each other in the same article. Since 636 meters is not 2,064 feet which height is correct? 2,064 feet corresponds roughly to 629 meters another height that Emaar simultaneously claims on the Official Burj Dubai website. This leaves me to beleive that Emaar is not reliable source because of conflicts between its articles, outdated information, and inaccuries betwen feet and meters. They obviously have no idea what they are quoting. 636 meters and 2,064 feet are not the same thing! I suggest we stop using Emaar as a source and use www.BurjDubaiskyscraper.com because it is a much more reliable, accurate, updated, and clear source with thousands of pictures, videos, and links. Emaar gives us none of these pictures, diagrams or nothing.Maldek (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong?

You seem pretty upset but I don't understand why you are so mad. I mean is editing wikipedia your job? Do you get paid to edit wikipedia? If not why do you take edits so seriously? Nobody is paying you to be an editor. It's not like you are in charge of editing this site and I am making you work harder or anything like that. I mean you're doing this for fun, right? Your editing for fun/recreation during your free time? If so, don't take this so serioius. Your Friend.Maldek (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Emirati people

Hi Leitmanp, I've replied on the article's talk page. Also I know I owe you responses on a couple of other discussions – I will try and get to them sometime tomorrow. I've been fairly busy and haven't been able to contribute much off late. Thanks AreJay (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Frankfurt

Is it to late to get List of tallest buildings in Frankfurt on the Did You Know? I know it was created over 5 days ago but it size has increased 10 times scince I created on the 17th. Alaskan assassin (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I guss Equitable Building (Atlanta 1892) is the best I can think of. The only other options I can think of are Equitable Building (Demolished). I went ahead and put in a request for Franfurt on DYN but it probaly won't pass. Alaskan assassin (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw Frankfurt on the main page earlier today. I must have already changed it. You could change Equitable Building to [[Equitable Building (disambiguation}]], and then make Equitable Building (Atlanta) to Equitable Building and Equitable Building (Atlanta 1892) to something. Do you think Atlanta is ready for FTD besides article creation? Alaskan assassin Alaskan assassin (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:To get to featured status

Leitmanp, great work on the Atlanta list. It looks great, and will certainly be ready for featured list candidacy once Alaskan assassin is finished creating the articles. As far as I can see, there are only a few, very minor formatting/MoS issues, and I will address them now. But again, great work! As far as the title for the building goes, Equitable Building (Atlanta 1892) is really the best solution. There has been at least one instance of this naming method before: Gulf Building (Houston) was once named JPMorgan Chase Building (Houston 1929).

As for the US list, I think it would be much easier to strive for an FLC for List of tallest buildings in Atlanta, at least for this month. The US list still has some major problems; the lead is the most pressing issue, as it contains outdated information and does not "flow" well at all. Other issues are the inclusion of non-builing free-standing towers, a general cleanup/addition of information to the "Notes" column in the main list, and whether 400 ft is an appropriate height cutoff in the destroyed section. The list is close, but not nearly as close as the Atlanta list. For the timeline, I usually use SkyscraperPage diagrams as well, so I would not be able to tell you if the information is incorrect. However, Houstontowers seems to be an expert in that field, so perhaps dropping a note on his/her talk page would be a good idea. Cheers, Rai•me 03:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it really doesn't matter if a list is for a city or a country, as the same standards should apply. I am personally in favor of including the Stratosphere Tower in the list, but not giving it a rank; thus, it would be listed for "comparison purposes" only, and the ranks of all of the habitable buildings would remain unchanged. Alaskan assassin developed this idea for List of tallest buildings in Seattle and the Space Needle. What do you think? And I agree about the note; do you think Alaskan assassin's proposal is what should be stated? If so, the Dallas, Toronto and Las Vegas lists would need to be altered. Cheers, Rai•me 01:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I added this section to Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists, and it contains a section on when and how to include non-building structures in tallest building lists. Feel free to improve it in any way you see fit. Cheers, Rai•me 03:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You like Dubai, cool

Looks like you like the UAE and Dubai just like I do. That's pretty sweet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DubaiTerminator (talk • contribs) 23:45, 3 June 2008

Burj Dubai in YouTube

Hi, Leitmanp.

Please, watch this, I created by OneTrueMedia.

Burj Dubai (May 2008)

Thank you for watching! Unknownquinones (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Equitable Building renamed

I completely agree. Adding ", Georgia" to the title doesn't distinguish at all between the two buildings, and only makes the 1892 building's article inconsistent with the vast majority of titles for U.S. skyscrapers in major cities. A move request is definitely needed here. Cheers, Rai•me 23:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I just went ahead and moved it back to "Equitable Building (Atlanta 1892)". There was already consensus between 3 editors for the title "Equitable Building (Atlanta 1892)", so it shouldn't have been moved in the first place. And yes, as the title with the ", STATENAME" addition offered no disambiguation with Equitable Building (Atlanta), the move was uncontroversial, but in this case there was not a need to go through WP:RM to accomplish it. Chers, Rai•me 14:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no special amdinistrative "powers" here. Any editor can move a page over a redirect, as long as it meets this criteria outlined in WP:MOVE: "if the new title already exists but is just a redirect to the old title, with just one line in the page history, the creation of the redirect, then you can rename the page. The most common case in which this applies is that of re-renaming a page back to its original name." Cheers, Rai•me 01:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubai temperature template

Hi Leitmanp, could you please take a look at this and provide your input? As I had mentioned on Talk:Dubai about a month ago, I liked how the generic temperature template summarized rain and temperature data, but felt that the colors were a little gaudy. We can continue to tweak the color codings as needed, since this is just a temporary page and if/when it's finally acceptable to us (and anyone else who wishes to join in QAing the template), we'll add it to the Dubai page. Thanks AreJay (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll wait for a couple of days for others to chime in. I gathered from your response that you'd like to see the scale basically "moved up". I think that would work...however, let's give it a couple of days and see what others say as well. Thanks AreJay (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Columbus image mapping

 Done! Let me know if/when you have any more. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Al Burj

Leitmanp, I reverted edits of the IP address 121.216.152.253 to your last version due to vandalism. Please, warn that IP address. Thanks! Unknownquinones (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Emailed Emaar

I recently emailed Emaar properties about the current height. I am hoping they will give me an answer so it might hopefully end the controversy about the current height. DubaiTerminator (User talk:DubaiTerminator) 5:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

Do you have any further commentary for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Chicago

Could you come revisit the discussion at List of tallest buildings in Chicago?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Chicago and future of WP:SKY

Hey. Do you think this list is ready for FL-nomination? Raime did some nice work today to the lead and the list overall looks great, just like other FL's. And also, where should we go when we are done with the major FL's for US cities; Asia seems to be a hotbed for skyscrapers and massive skylines. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 05:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I like the proposal, but I think we might have some problems with cities that don't have enough buildings listed (with height and floor count). If you search through Emporis, you will find that many Chinese cities have building entires with only a floor count, but no height count. An example is Taipei. Just look at this. There are many more buildings with only floor count listed than there are with both floor and height listed. What do you think of this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydrogen Iodide (talk • contribs) 01:38, 16 June 2008

Oh yea, if you didn't know, skyscraper stuff is up for deletion. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 01:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can 'estimate' the height of some Taipei skyscrapers from this. However, from prior experience, some diagrams may be out of scale and this could give us an incorrect height. I have a friend from Taiwan and he says the database (Emporis, SkyscraperPage) is very incomplete for Taipei. Most of Taipei's buildings are 10 - 25 stories tall, and you can see this in a Google image search of Taipei. In addition, there is certainly many more highrise buildings than the 100-ish listed on both databases (guess: >750 highrise). I think we might have to cancel building lists for cities with incomplete databases such as Taipei. I highly doubt FLC-reviewers like seeing blank space after blank space, especially in the height column. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 03:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

Would you care to visit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) and update your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, either strikethrough or hide various resolved issues as appropriate so I can keep track of the issues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the infobox. Have I made enough progress to ask for your support yet or do you have more issues?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Supporting an article at FAC does not mean it is perfect. It means you think it is one of Wikipedia's finest. I think this may be the best article ever contributed to WP for a building under construction. If not the best ever, it is among WP's finest. Surely, you have an opinion on whether it is one of the finest. The article needs some support.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

NMC

Hi Leitmanp, thanks for the heads up. I've voted for a "keep" and will take a stab at revamping/expanding the article sometime tomorrow. Thanks AreJay (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Al Burj name change

Hey Leitmanp, I just found out that the Al Burj tower in Dubai is changing it's name to the "Tall Tower". Personally I think it's a dumb name but I guess that's whats happening. I am not going to change the title of Al Burj's info page on Wikipedia but I was wondering what you thought? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DubaiTerminator (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop changing the International School of choueifat page

Just let the truth out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.107.39 (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:List of tallest buildings in Phoenix - and related issues

Leitmanp, I'd be happy to assist in your FL "quest" for List of tallest buildings in Phoenix! Great job; it is definitely a great list. I will look over the list now, and do some copyediting, although from an early glance I doubt it will need much. I also have some free time tomorrow (well, I guess today if you go by UTC, I live on the East Coast :-) ), so I will create some articles to reduce the number of redlinks in the list. I just have one question; why did you choose 245 ft as a height cutoff, instead of 250 ft? The only change would be the "loss" of three buildings from the main list (which wouldn't be a problem at all, since many lists have between 15 and 25 buildings entries) and one from the proposed. I just think 250 ft is less "random", although that is just my opinion...

For the tallest buildings in satellite cities section, I think you should leave it as is with only topped out or completed buildings. There is no problem with it only having two entries, but I don't think we should include proposed or approved structures. If Tempe has 8 proposed/approved 245 ft+ buildings, perhaps it warrants its own list? A quick look at the Emporis page seems to support this. And I think it is about time we add guidelines for a "Tallest in suburbs" section on WP:SKY's tallest buildings list page. That discussion showed clear consensus, so I will add the information tonight.

Now for the copyright problem; I definitely agree that that image is a very likely copyright infringement. Your reasoning at User talk:Sonoran dweller is very valid. Unless Sonoran dweller provides a reasonable explanation soon, I will proceed with image deletion based on copyright infringement on both Wikipedia and the Commons (there are separate processes if the image is present on both sites on separate pages, which seems to be the case here. For Wikipedia, it is labeling the image description page with {{imagevio}}, which I will do now. For the Commons, I would say this is an obvious case, so I will tag it with commons:Template:Copyvio). It is unfortunate, as that image is very aesthetically pleasing and so widely used to portray Phoenix, but of course there are substitutions. Can you find any other URLs that show the image as being a possible/probable copyvio?

Never mind, I guess the image is only present on the Commons. I guess we will only need one deletion process after all. Cheers, Rai•me 02:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

For the panorama, I think this is the best one. I have removed the border using software on my computer, and so will upload the final version soon to the Commons. Does that sound alright? For the lead image, the sunset image is nice (I will upload that one too), but I don't think we should use it as the main lead image as the skyline is a little too small and the buildings are less detailed. I prefer this one, although the other one you listed is also nice. What do you think? I agree that the images at the Commons are not the best or most appealing; the ones at Flickr would be much better to use as new lead image(s). And I have absolutely no problem doing any of this! I am happy to help where help is needed. You are definitely not being rude or forceful at all. Cheers, Rai•me 01:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have now tagged Image:Sparkling Downtown Phoenix.jpg for deletion at the Commons and uploaded Image:Skyline of Phoenix.jpg, Image:Phoenix skyline.jpg, Image:Phoenix skyline sunset.jpg and Image:Phoenix skyline panorama.jpg. I am going to copyedit and look over List of tallest buildings in Phoenix now. Cheers, Rai•me 02:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Flickr image dates should all be correct, as when uploading a Flickr image, the date the uploader uses is usually the date the image was uploaded to Flickr (at least from my experience). The image may have been taken in the 1990, but it couldn't have been uploaded before 2004, Flickr's creation. Per the Flinfo tool, the tool that automatically generates all of the information found on the image description pages, the date the image was actually uploaded to Flickr is the date that is used in the image's description. However, I will add your estimated dates of completion to the "Description" part if the summary.

That is interesting about the two skyline images; I should have checked before uploading. But, it is more interesting that the images have different authors and licenses. Due to the different resolutions, different authors, and different licenses, I am unsure if the images qualify as "exact duplicates" on the Commons. Still, I tagged the image I uploaded with commons:Template:Duplicate.

Interestingly enough, I also found that the image Image:Phoenixsunset.jpg exists on Wikipedia (although it does have a border, so they are not identical). I have serious doubts about this image; we now see that three different authors (Jim Blanton, or User:Phoenixguy88, for the WP one; M S for the Flickr one, and Donald M. Burns (whom I presume is the actual author) for the website you found). There are also three different image licenses... I have a feeling that the image is a copyvio, and that we should not use M S's images from Flickr (which includes the panorama and Image:Skyline of Phoenix.jpg). Anyway, as I now am worried that all of M S's images are copyvios, do you think you could help me and try to find websites that "prove" this? Obviously, if they are copyvios, they need to be deleted from the Commons. Overall, I agree that we should use a cropped version of Image:Phoenix.skyline.750pix.jpg as the new lead image, as it shows a larger portion of the skyline.

Finally, I think we should leave the date entries blank if Emporis and/or SkyscraperPage list 2007 as the year of completion; this is the method used for List of tallest buildings in Miami. Obviously, that date is wrong, but using a date of 2008 would be unsourced. Cheers, Rai•me 20:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Commons doesn't have the option for uploader-requested speedy deletion as far as I know, and I doubt that a copyvio speedy deletion would go through seeing as all of the images have passed Flickr reviews by Commons admins and are freely licensed on Flickr. The fact that the images have not yet been deleted on Flickr is significant; as far as I know, Flickr deletes any image that is a suspected copyright violation. The best option by far would be to find a URL that proves the images to be copyvios. I also have had no luck with this, but I guess all we can do is keep trying and meanwhile not use the images in articles. But, we can nominate both of the sunset images (the one on Wikipedia and the one on the Commons) as copyvios. And yes, what I meant would to rephrase the "Date" entry as "Uploaded to Flickr on March 07, 2005 at 13:14" and rephrase the "Description" entry as "Skyline of Phoenix, Arizona in 1990". But you're right, I guess that is a fairly minor issue now. Cheers, Rai•me 01:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted the experienced Commons admin commons:User:Dodo, who passed the Flickr reviews for two of the four images, for help with this issue. Cheers, Rai•me 02:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubai

Greetings, clearly you have contributing very significantly to Dubai articles in a very productive manner. I would like to give you kudos for that. I am attempted to place some decent photos in the article however, it abruptly gets removed and the unappealing photos unfortunately remain. Thoughts? Scythian1 (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Leitmanp, I posted some comments on the Dubai article. 01:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hotel Panorama / Hanoi Road Redevelopment / Hyatt Regency Hong Kong

Hey, these all refer to the same 261 m building. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 02:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Just change the link from Hotel Panorama to Hyatt Regency Hong Kong; that will be the official name of the 261 m skyscraper when Hyatt moves in. However, redirecting Hotel Panorama may not be a good idea. There are actually two Hotel Panorama's in Tsim Sha Tsui, the 261 m one (the "Hotel Panorama" you were talking about) and a shorter tower run by Rhombus. The article Hotel Panorama refers to this shorter hotel and you can see a picture of the tower on the upper right-hand corner of the above link. I think we need a disambiguation page to differentiate between these two "Hotel Panoramas". If you are still confused, take a look at this on Google maps. The 261 m tower is on the left and Hotel Panorama (Rhombus) is on the right. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 02:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Hong Kong buildings, I have one issue with the source information regarding Hong Kong's number of skyscrapers over 500 feet and 200 m. Currently, Emporis states that there are 228 buildings over 150 m (1st in the world) and 45 over 200 m (should be 47 since the Cullinan Towers are complete, this is second behind New York, as confirmed by DiSerio's skyline ranking site). As you could see, I found height figures for many building entries in Hong Kong that only had floor counts on Emporis, seen here, here, and here. It turns out, many of these building entries (ranging from 45 to 63 floors) are over 500 feet tall and a few of them are taller than 200 m. This raised the number of buildings taller than 200 m to 52 (proving DiSerio wrong) and the list has ballooned to 106 entires. Should I add these skyscrapers (that I found the height for) to the count of 228 buildings >150 m? The trouble is, there are more buildings that are over 150 m tall with just floor counts listed in Emporis (as verified by Skyscraperpage diagrams) and it's quite a lot of work to seek out which of those building entries with only floor counts exceed 150 m in height. Or should we just go with what Emporis states and add a note that there is more? Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 03:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)