Talk:Supertall

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 September 2007. The result of the discussion was delete.

This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on January 4, 2010. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Discussion about the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supertall[edit]

plenty of bad grammer

You misspelled 'grammar'!74.237.28.5 20:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chrystler building is not 300m tall

It is with the spire. Also the Eureka Tower in Melbourne is not planned to be over 300m, it can only exceed it if the plans to add the 53.75m communications mast/observation tower are approved. Does this warrant its inclusion to the list? Thegreatloofa 16:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the mast on the top is not of temporary nature, than it most be considered as supertall structure!

Al Faisaliyah Center should be added to supertall buldings in the green square. I didnt know how to do it my self !!!

Tower of the Americas is not supertall and must therefore disappear of the list of supertall structures in the green square!

Millau Viaduct, world's tallest bridge and the proposed Strait of Messina Bridge must be added to supertall buldings in the green square. I didnt know how to do it my self !!!

Yangtze River Crossing, world's tallest electricity pylons have to be added to the list of supertall structures!

Quoting from the article: "Critics suggest that the current world economic situation does not require such a massive concentration of people and capital and, after the occurrence of the September 11, 2001 attacks, fear that such towers will almost certainly become terrorist targets." I'm sorry but this part of the article seems very America centric. Unless it can be supported, (that everyone else in the world also 'fear' a terrorist attack on their tall buildings), then it would be better left unsaid.

You're right, weasel words are used and it is unsourced. I'm removing this section per the WP:Weasel and WP:Attribution. You should make an account and sign your comments with ~~~~ (you can sign even when not logged in) -- Dragonbeast 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naysaying, maybe, but that is not 'weasel words'.

'Supertall'=Improper Grammar[edit]

Ok, other coined phrases such as 'superbug' and 'supercentenarian' combine an adjective and a noun, but 'supertall' is a fusion of two adjectives, with no noun. It is therefore grammatically incorrect.74.237.28.5 20:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article smacks of 'boosterism'[edit]

The tone needs to be modified from pro-building to neutral POV.74.237.28.5 20:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why I removed the prod on this page[edit]

A quick Google shows that the term supertall is definitely in use to describe such structures, including being part of the title [1] of an event held by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, one of the major firms involved in the design of modern skyscrapers. More importantly, though, even if we were to decide "supertall" is a neologism that can't be referenced, it seems to me that it's appropriate to have this as an overview page for the concept of extremely tall manmade structures, whether we call it supertall or something else. (It does need work, but I think it's a reasonable starting point.) If you're still opposed to the existence of the page, you can take it to AfD, of course. Pinball22 17:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't reference, it can't be here period. See WP:V. I'm sure we already have an article on skyscrapers and skyscrapers that are taller than usual would belong there, not in a made up term which is attributed vaguely to the ultimately unreliable blog. If no one can provide references in a reasonable time I'll take it to AfD.--Crossmr 01:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the intro alone currently indicates why this shouldn't be here, "although no official definition exists" thats a pretty big red flag right there.--Crossmr 04:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and if that's true, then I can see your point as to the name of the page and the portion of it that aims to be a definition. But it seems like the rest of the information should be in a page about the concept of really tall structures, even if it's under another name. Pinball22 23:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a page, as I pointed out, skyscrapers. We don't need to break everything down in to ever more specific classes all the time.--Crossmr 02:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this page is actually less specific than the skyscraper page -- that one is about only habitable buildings, whereas this is about all extremely tall man-made structures. Pinball22 13:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence Supertall is a colloquial, recently-coined term that refers to an extremely tall skyscraper. . It does contain other material but that is how this article is billed. Any information about taller than usual structures could go to their respective pages (if the structure is notable enough to warrant one) or to the page of the base subject (i.e. radio towers). I don't see the need to have a page dedicated to really tall structures in general. Nothing a category couldn't handle for the few structures that do have the notability to warrant their own article.--Crossmr 14:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that supertall doesn't warrant it's own page. Skyscraper exists, as do other pages that most certainly label themselves as "world's tallest bridge, tower, building, dam, etc. Even second tallest, third tallest, tallest until, and tallest since are popular in wik articles. I recommend possibly including "supertall" as a wiktionary entry only as it really is a vocabulary lesson at best, not encyclopedic (it already exists in very rudimentary form [[2]]) Keeper76 00:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geez[edit]

Geez! I've never heard of this word. Does it really need an article? What ever happened to using terms like "rather tall", or "very tall"? Mhavril39 22:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

Following the AfD decision to delete, there was a redirect to Megastructure which I don't think was appropriate. Based on the further Deletion Review discussion I have redirected to List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_the_world and hope that meets with general agreement. VJDocherty 16:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend deletion[edit]

"Supertall" is merely a gramatically incorrect combination of two adjectives and does not have meaning beyond "super" and "tall". Even if used in media and press releases of skyscrapers it does not make it encyclopedic. The redirect is unnecessary. Wikipedia articles should not use the term unless it was a quote from public media or affiliated spokesperson/architect for the skyscraper. Reference to the List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_the_world can be made within any skyscraper article when desired, rather than using this non-standard term. Generally if it's a term you don't think would be in Encyclopedia Britannica and also not a culturally significant slang term, then it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Also, if it's only a term, it can just go to Wiktionary. "Supertall" is not found in any of the dictionary sources in Dictionary.com. --Mistakefinder (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a redirect, not an article. What happens in Britannica is frankly irrelevant to what happens here. if it appears in the media then it is likely people will search for it, which is why its a redirect.--Crossmr (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakefinder, please provide references for your allegation that combining adjectives or that the combination of these particular words is "gramatically [sic] incorrect". My cursory glances at some reference works show that "super" is used as all of adjective, noun, adverb, and prefix; and "supertall" in various uses from platform shoes in the 1970s through gear ratios in the 1980s to builings from the 1990s onward in various edited publications. — Hippietrail (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]