Talk:Skyscraper

Shibam

The article doesn't consider the city of Shibam, Yemen, built in the Middle Ages and one of the first places in the world to use vertical buildings in urban planning. Shibam, which is now a UNESCO World Heritage Site, owes its fame to its distinct architecture.The houses of Shibam are all made out of mud brick and about 500 of them are tower blocks, which rise 5 to 11 stories high,[2] with each floor having one or two rooms.[3] This architectural style was used in order to protect residents from Bedouin attacks. While Shibam has been in existence for an estimated 1,700 years, most of the city's houses originate from the 16th century. Many, though, have been rebuilt numerous times in the last few centuries.

Spamming

Someone read what someone has done to the third sentence. 71.252.144.238 (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Are Pyramids Skycrapers?

Skycrapers are defined in this article as "tall, continuously habitable buildings". As such, the Egyptian Pyramids, which were tombs for the dead pharaos, do not comply to the definition and should thus be removed. They may be very relevant in other articles on high rise building, but not in the history of skycrapers. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't suggest that the pyramids were skyscrapers. However, mention of the pyramids does make a nice preamble to the history of skyscrapers. Astronaut (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is...fuzzy. If pyramids are not skycrapers, why should they be included in this article? They are off-topic, not relevant then. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, calm down. Well... Only one way to find out... Are there any true and reliable external references and sources saying that pyramids are skyscrapers, or at least, mentioning that it's preamble to the history of skyscrapers? Well if there aren't any, then let's not add that line in. I'm on the neutral side in whatever discussion. Remember, whatever content someone adds especially in this article, it has to be backed up by sources. The more, the better.

I'll see what I can do to help you guys. School has has my hands pretty tied up from Wiki work lately. Someformofhuman Speak now! 00:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction: Skyscrapers are defined as high-rise structures where:

A. The highest floor is above the reach of a fire fighter hose

and

B. The building is supported by mainly internal, not wall, support.

and

C. At least 2/3 of the building is divided into habitable floors.

Pyramids are structures, but not skyscrapers.Ryoung122 11:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Pyramids are structures, not skyscrapers. However, skyscrapers are also tall structures, and to fail to even briefly mention structures that were the tallest in the world for over 3500 years, doesn't put the history of skyscrapers into it's proper context. Astronaut (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Since Ryoung122, Astronaut and Gun Powder Ma agree that pyramids are no skyscrapers, and since noone has put forward the evidence to the contrary requested by Someformofhuman I remove the passage here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't presume consensus. The fact that Pyramids are not skyscrapers is irrelevant. This article is about skyscrapers, but it contains mention of a number of buildings and structres that are not skyscrapers. These non-skyscrapers put the history of the subject in its proper context. Without the important historical context, the history section should start with the ten-storey Home Insurance Building in Chicago from 1885 and all before that should be deleted. As Gun Powder Ma is clearly happy with some history of skyscrapers before 1885, why set the limit arbitarily at Roman Insulae? Mentioning the pyramids in this article gives the history of skyscrapers a proper historical context, and therefore should remain. Astronaut (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well as of writing this, I'm in the school's library now under the architecture section. Been borrowing, so far I haven't heard of or read anything about the Great Pyramids of Giza being considered, or defined as 'Skyscrapers', or providing any connection, relation to, and its history. Once again, my discussion is on the neutral aspect, so in the meantime, I will still continue to search. Personally speaking, I know the great pyramids may provide a certain amount of historical meaning of "Tall Structures", but that doesn't mean that they are considered and termed as Skyscrapers, just because of its tallness, height and year it was built. If this logic passes, then I might as well add a phrase about Church Steeples and term them as Skyscrapers as well.

Defining the pyramids as 'skyscrapers' can be quite a misleading from the term 'structure'. Overall I believe we can include them, but we should not term them as Skyscrapers but as Structures instead, and how these structures... sort of, inspired mankind's inspiration, invention, construction and creating the laws, defination and use of a Skyscraper? - personally thinking.

Also, I'm sure you do realize that the article has been plagued by vast numbers of IP edited POV over the years, and are rather sourceless and even to the extent of inappropriateness in some cases, hence some of the structures didn't really met the requirements they had to be removed. Once again, my discussion is the neutral. I take no sides unless if I see written proof or source.

Nevertheless, Astronaut, thank you. I do appreciate your thoughts and input. Thanks to everyone else too. I'll continue to search. I value this discussion.

Someformofhuman Speak now! 06:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the template to give Astronaut the opportunity to prove that pyramids etc. are skyscrapers. Since he wants them included in the article, the burden of proof is his. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting. =) Haha. Someformofhuman Speak now! 03:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous suggestion. I have never suggested the pyramids are skyscrapers. I have however suggested that the history section should contain some other examples to provide some context for the reader. This same technique is used in many other places... for example, the history of Punk rock contains a brief mention of Garage rock; the History of the telephone talks about speaking tubes and string telephones; the History of London talks about what was there before the Romans built Londinium. In all these cases the off-subject examples serve to put the article subject into its historical context. The same applies with skyscrapers - mentioning earlier examples of tall structures that are not skyscrapers, helps put the history of skyscrapers into its correct historical context. IMHO, User:Someformofhuman appears to have it right when he says "...how these structures... sort of, inspired mankind's inspiration, invention, construction and creating the laws, defination and use of a Skyscraper..." Astronaut (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Listing pyramids among skyscrapers, although they definitely aren't skyscrapers, simply confuses readers, and it close to being not the thing you want to do in an encyclopedia. By your reasoning, we could also include churches, lighthouses, mosques, donjons and pagodas etc. etc. Since you do not seem to contribute to the article otherwise, your insistence takes away the time from people who are sincerely trying to improve it. Provide evidence for the pyramids being skyscrapers or be so kind and point us to a Wikipedia regulation which justifies your entry. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Since you do not seem to contribute to the article otherwise, your insistence takes away the time from people who are sincerely trying to improve it." Examine my edit history for this article and you will see that your statement is untrue. With your experience, I would heve thought you would know better than to make such accusations.

As I have endlessly pointed out, I know that pyramids are not skyscrapers so I will not be providing evidence that they are; and to insist that I provide evidence that we both know does not exist is ridiculous. To repeat myself yet again, the mentioning of pyramids and other non-skyscraper structures simply adds context to the the history of skyscrapers. It does not confuse the readers. Astronaut (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To help us reach some agreement and maybe get some fresh eyes to look at this, I have opened a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers#Content dispute: Opinions please. Please visit that discussion. Hopefully, I have presented our difference of opinion in a neutral way, but if you feel I have misrepresented Gun Powder Ma's opinion, feel free to correct it. Astronaut (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Image placement

This edit added an image of the Rockafeller Center to the article. I have removed the image because:

• The image was inappropriately placed, creating the undesirable situation where article text was squashed between two images - something that is discouraged in the image placement guidelines (see MOS:IMAGES, particularly the third bullet point).
• The image is too large on the page compared to the other images. The size setting is 250px compared to 150px for the others.
• The image just doesn't add much to the subject of the article anyway. It might be better placed on the Rockefeller Center article or the GE Building article, though those articles are currently well illustrated.

Astronaut (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

First in Europe

Can anyone confirm that Kungstornen were the first skyscrapers in Europe? In this case, they should probably be noted in the article. All the best, /Urbourbo (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That claim could be challenged by the Witte Huis in Rotterdam (1898), though I don't think that building actually referred to as a "skyscraper" until later. Astronaut (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Supertall is not a word

Seriously, can it be struck from the DEFINITION section? It sounds like a bad movie or a silly childhood claim "I super-duper-double-dog dare you". I'd just delete the line myself but I think you're supposed to ask for a citation or something. 76.94.46.26 (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think supertall is a stupid word and it shouldn't appear here or anywhere else. However, it's use in this article is simply to say that buildings over 300m can be referred to as supertall. It is unfortunate that some people seem fond of the word, but if others were to speak out against the term I would be happy to remove it. Astronaut (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've also brought it to the attention of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers. Astronaut (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have only ever heard it used as an adjective although a definition can be found here:

The CTBUH defines “supertall” as a building over 300 meters (984 feet) in height. Although great heights are now being achieved with built tall buildings – in excess of 800 meters (2,600 feet) – at the mid-point of 2011 there are only approximately 54 buildings in excess of 300 meters completed and occupied globally.

— http://www.ctbuh.org/HighRiseInfo/TallestDatabase/Criteria/tabid/446/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Longwayround (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph

I find the following paragraph confusing and uninformative:

Also, the total energy expended towards waste disposal and climate control is relatively lower for a given number of people occupying a skyscraper than that same number of people occupying modern housing.[citation needed] However the city of Paris, France has almost the population density of Manhattan, New York, despite having just a few tall buildings.

What is the "modern housing" that the skyscraper is compared to? Skyscrapers themselves are all "modern" in a broad sense of the word. Does it mean modern lower-rise housing? Why is housing even relevant here, given that skyscrapers typically are used for offices not housing?

Similarly the point about Manhattan and Paris doesn't make much sense to me as I would think population density is more a factor of the distribution of commercial and residential uses. I would presume that Manhattan is mainly commercial and relatively few people actually live there compared with Paris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Booshank (talk • contribs) 11:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is talking about the advantages of concentrating energy consumption in a smaller area. For example, it is quite possible that cooling 500 low-rise homes would consume a lot more energy, than centrally cooling the same 500 families if they lived in a single large skyscraper. However, it goes on to say that skyscrapers are not the only way to achiev high density living because it appears that Paris achieves similar population density to Manhattan, but using much shorter buildings. Having lived in Paris, I believe that is because many Parisians live in apartments above the stores and offices, rather than separate apartment blocks. Astronaut (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of APIIC Tower from Future Skyscrapers

Twice now, the APIIC Tower has been removed from the Future Skyscrapers section. The first time the WSJ was cited as a source; I reverted that because the cited article doesn't mention the APIIC tower. Now the same editor has undone my change, saying "APIIC Tower renamed to Reliance Trade Tower. Read again. Also, here is another source http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=471574 ". Do we have a more reliable source than a forum which says the APIIC tower has been renamed or that the APIIC Tower is on indefinite hold? Astronaut (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I know for certain that "APIIC Tower" = "Reliance Trade Tower". Why? Here is the excerpt from [1]:

"Reliance Trade Tower

Hyderabad

Height: Not available

Specs: A 100storey commercial tower

Cost: Rs8,000 cr for the entire project

Project: Reliance Trade Tower is part of a 77acre business district that will be jointly developed by Reliance Infrastructure Ltd (66% stake), Sobha Developers Ltd (23%) and the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corp. Ltd (11%).

Hurdles: The stakeholders have been unable to close financing or find tenants.

Status: Reliance Infra has decided to indefinitely postpone the project."

AND, here is the Emporis page on the APIIC Tower [2], which states:

"Companies involved in this building

• Sobha Developers Ltd.
• Reliance Industries Ltd.
• APIIC - Andra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd."

AND, here is the project description when it was first announced back in 2007, according to [3] and [4]

"A consortium led by Reliance Energy has emerged as the successful bidder for the Rs 6,400 crore business district project proposed in Hyderabad by the state-owned Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation(APIIC). The project will have three modules, including a 100-plus storied tower, and is scheduled to be completed in three years. The project is expected to be completed in five years."

To summarize. This so-called APIIC tower is a part of a Central Business District project that was announced back in 2007, but since then, the entire project has been put on hold, per [5]. The APIIC Tower has been renamed after its biggest sponsor, which is Reliance Corp, but this new name did not catch up, and the building is still known as the APIIC tower by many. The playing loose with the names has caused quite a bit of confusion, but judging from the project parameters listed in the above excerpts, APIIC tower is in fact Reliance Power Tower, or Reliance Energy Tower, or Reliance Trade Tower, or APIIC/Reliance Tower, or APIIC/Reliance Energy Tower, or APIIC/Reliance Power Tower, or APIIC/Reliance Trade Tower, or some other combinations thereof. User your imagination :P

I know it's a mess, but I think I got it right. By78 (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounds likely, but that's an awful lot of speculation, and I doubt I would be as certain that APIIC tower and Reliance Trade Tower are actually the same project. Then again, just how many 100-story buildings are proposed for Hyderabad? let's leave it removed for the time being and see what develops. Astronaut (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Pyramids again

Once again Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs) is sure that any mention of Egyptian pyramids has no place in this article. The subject was discussed at some length in January 2009, both here and at WikiProject Skyscrapers, and I was under the impression that the consensus was to leave the mention of pyramids in this article. By way of compromise, {{examplefarm}} was added to the relevant section of the article, inviting editors to improve things by: "adding more descriptive text and removing less pertinent examples". After 5 months nothing had been done, suggesting to me that there was no problem with the so-called "examplefarm", so I removed the template.

So, let's re-open this discussion. As I have previously stated, I believe that although pyramids are not skyscrapers, mention of the pyramids does make a nice preamble to the history of skyscrapers. What do others out there think? Astronaut (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I had a different impression of the consensus, but anyway let us reconsider the arguments again. IMO the inclusion of the pyramids violates Wikipedia:Scope, because pyramids are not skycrapers and they cannnot even considered as distant precursors of skyscrapers as the described ancient and medieval apartment buildings may be. All they have in common with skyscrapers is their extraordinary height. But medieval church towers are also extraordinarily high, even higher (+150m), yet they are rightly still not included.

Skyscrapers are from a constructional view almost the opposite as pyramids. Skyscrapers are modern inhabited buildings constructed in an urban environment from concrete, structural steel and glass. By contrast, pyramids are tombs, constructions built from limestone. Skycrapers are light-weight post-and-lintel constructions, pyramids are massive piles of stone. Nothing in common. If you want to have included the pyramids for their size, I propose we move the section to High-rise buildings where they are much more fitting than here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"continuously habitable"

The phrase "continuously habitable" is used in the first sentence as the "definition" then in the "definition" section it is not mentioned. I think at least a sentence (it shouldn't take much more) should be devoted to clarifying it since it's used in the definition and since the casual reader might not immediately call to mind the towers and other structures that this phrasing excludes from "skyscraper" and therefore the reason that it is part of the definition. Thanks -- Jieagles (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Could anyone please tell me what does it mean? WHat does it mean that it is continuiously habitable? That you can live in it all the year? --83.248.223.246 (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa roof height

Probably not 828m. 81.129.122.211 (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Pyramids (yet) again

Once again Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs) has returned to disrupt this article, by removing the paragraph mentioning Egyptian pyramids. The subject was discussed at some length in January 2009, both here and at WikiProject Skyscrapers, and I was under the impression that the consensus was to leave the mention of pyramids in this article. When the subject was again raised in October 2009, there seemed to be no appetite to support removal of the paragraph.

I am happy to reopen this discussion. As I have previously stated, I believe that although pyramids are not skyscrapers, mention of the pyramids does make a nice preamble to the history of skyscrapers. What do others out there think? Astronaut (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

St. Olaf´´s Church (Tallinn)

If memory serves, wasn´t St. Olaf´s church in Tallinn (Estonia), (at 159 m) the tallest building in the world from 1549-1625? It isn´t even mentioned in the article so I just thought I would mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.171.40 (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

While this article does discuss some other very early tall structures, it is principally about skyscrapers. The History/Before the 19th century section quickly moves on to discussing tall residential and office buildings and then skyscrapers as developed in western Europe and North America towards the end of the 19th century. However, St. Olaf's church, Tallinn is listed as previously being a tallest building in the world in List of tallest buildings and structures in the world#History. Astronaut (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

CRP skyscraper

Perhaps the Ciliwung Recovery Project skyscraper can be mentioned ? Some other green skyscrapers too could be mentioned such as the skyscrapers of the Gwang Gyo Power Center --> http://www.evolo.us/competition/water-purification-skyscraper-in-jakarta/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.227.212 (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

While Ciliwung Recovery Project looks like an interesting project, it is a long way from a reality. Lets see if it gets anywhere beyond a glossy brochure, before we start writing an encyclopedia articles about them. Astronaut (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Year of Burj Khalifa Dubai

It must be wrong. 2010? --88.115.96.145 (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The CTBUH has very clear criteria when something is a skyscraper. Burj Khalifa became officially recognised as a skyscraper when it opened on 4 Jan 2010. Before then it was a just a tall structure". Astronaut (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted sentence

Large cities currently experiencing increased skyscraper construction include Toronto, London, Shanghai, Dubai, and Miami, which now is third in the United States.

I have removed this sentence as its reference is misleading. in the reference its titled "World's Best Skylines" --which even judging from the title, is rated by opinions on best skylines...not increased skyscraper construction. The site shows a table listing cities around the world that have the most skyscrapers in order, no mentioning of cities that are 'currently increased skyscraper construction', and may I mention this site has no sources are just forums as well as many other sites that don't seem to be mentioned, therefore meaning whoever created the site can change information around to whichever way suites them. Whoever added this sentence to the article, or whoever would like this sentence to be included in the article, please get the evidence, which is not just opinions.

the reference that is misleading -- [6]

Anything to discuss, talk to me on my talk page. Thankyou MelbourneStar1 (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for the Future skyscrapers section

This short list was becoming a haven various proposals with rumours that they might have started but no definite information that they were anything other then pie-in-the-sky. Consequentially, I have been WP:BOLD and tightened up the 'rules' for inclusion in the future skyscrapers section. For the time being, I propose a skyscraper can be included in the list if:

1. It is under construction, as noted by a reliable source or in a reliable database such as Emporis or the one maintained by the CTBUH (ie. something better than a rumour on a blog somewhere).
2. It would be notable in some way, such as having a particularly notable design feature or being among the tallest in it's city/country/region etc.

The idea here is to keep the list to a manageable size, definitely under 20 items. Comments?... Astronaut (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sustainability

The sustainability section contains a lot of statements that may be true in general but are very vague. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that the jury is decided on the sustainability of skyscrapers. While the buildings themselves require a lot of energy to build, the benefits of density may offset this. I would like to see a more detailed (and sourced) examination of skyscraper sustainability. 129.173.198.158 (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)hipp5

When that section was first added way back in Feb 2009 (was it really that long ago?) I hoped that someone would come along with some improvements such as sourcing. Obviously this hasn't happened, so if this request and the tag get no response, I'll probably remove or rewrite that section. Astronaut (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oriel Chambers -- "elevator had not yet been invented"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky-scraper#Before_the_19th_century section claims the Oriel Chambers building was only 5 stories high because "the elevator had not yet been invented." This is incorrect. Elisha Otis introduced the "safety elevator" in 1852, before the 1864 Oriel Chambers building. Elevator - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator#History. Retrieved 28 July 2011. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) .

The Elevator#History does indeed say Elisha Otis invented the safety elevator in 1852, although it also says the first installation wasn't until 1857 in New York City. It could have easily taken until after 1864 for the technology to become familiar in Europe. That said, I'm sure that statement was sourced but of the three sources, two don't mention elevators at all and the other seems to have disappeared behind a pay-wall. Therefore I have removed that statement until it can be verified. Astronaut (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

according to that article the electric elevator was not invented until 1880, so perhaps this article could reflect that fact, or that in 1864, elevators of any sort were still rare and rudimentary, especially in Europe. RodCrosby (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but we shouldn't speculate. While it is quite well known that one of the limits on tall buildings prior to the invention of the elevator was the time and energy required to mount many flights of stairs, it is probably better to wait for a reliable source to be found that states why the Oriel Chambers has "only five floors". That said, I doubt this is really important to the article. It reads fine as it is. Astronaut (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Equitable Life Assurance Building

Equitable Life Assurance Building was finished in 1870, not 1873! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.175.191.46 (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Equitable Life Assurance Building was indeed completed in 1870 - corrected table in 'History of tallest skyscrapers' section. Thanks for letting us know. Astronaut (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"Most famous"

In the caption for the head image, it states that the Empire State Building is "often considered the most famous". Are there any non-American references that can back this statement up? Mouse Nightshirt | talk 16:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

British or American spelling

There seems to be some dispute between which English spellings should be used in this article. Starting towards the end of January, the spelling of "storey"/"story", "metre"/"meter" and "kilometre"/"kilometer" were repeatedly changed. Taking a look back in the history at a more stable version, there seemed to be no definite consensus - for example in this version from 30 October:

Word	# of US spelling	# of British spelling
Story/Storey	9	13
Meter/Metre	2	7
Kilometer/Kilometre	4	0

After reverting a few edits where a couple of "storeys" were changed to "stories", on 26 January I finally converted all US spellings of that word to the British spelling on the basis that the spelling should be consistant throughout the article and thee were initially more of the British than US spellings. I also hoped it would discourage fly-by vandals from changing one or two that they happened to notice were different. Unfortunately that seems to have had the opposite effect, with multiple IP editors coming by almost on a daily basis to change British to US spelling. I eventually sought partial page protection and I thought that would be the end of it.

Unfortunately, a seasoned editor is convinced that the article "initially used American spelling and has been predominantly American spelling for years", and has gone through the article again changing British to American spelling (except for "storey"!) Quite why, I have no idea. There has been no consensus for a long time and when I try to be bold and decide on one, I meet opposition at every turn. I am tempted to go through and change it all back again, but lets wait for a while and see what happens. Astronaut (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don’t think it is a big deal to leave storey, because I believe it is fairly common in U.S. spelling as well. As for meter/metre, at the beginning of January 1, 2012‎, January 2, 2011, January 2, 2010, and most important, January 10, 2002‎. I was happy to keep the status quo that has existed for many years, but now that you have decided that it is time to make the spelling consistent throughout the article, it used American spelling from the very beginning and American spellings have been common in it ever since.

According to you, Unfortunately, a seasoned editor is convinced that the article "initially used American spelling and has been predominantly American spelling for years", and has gone through the article again changing British to American spelling (except for "storey"!) Quite why, I have no idea. But prior to this, YOU commented: rv one good faith edit by Stephen G. Brown - we should be trying to keep the WP:ENGVAR spelling consistant throughout the article and you changed all of those instances that had long been American spellings to British spellings. Then when I change them back to the way they were, and make the spellings consistent in accordance with your comment that we should be trying to keep the WP:ENGVAR spelling consistant throughout the article, you conveniently forgot what you did and what you suggested we should do. Also, I turned many of the spellings into abbreviations using the conversion template, which avoids the conflict entirely.

I think the matter might be best resolved by the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. —Stephen (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree with the assertion that "it used American spelling from the very beginning". As far as I can tell, once the article was a sensible size there was no real consensus and the spelling was mixed. Since we both agree that being consistant throughout the article is a good idea, why change my efforts make it consistantly British spelling throughout? If you wish to take it to the mediation committee then please do so. Astronaut (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

January 10, 2002‎ is the very beginning. Who said we both agree that being consistent throughout the article is a good idea? I didn’t say any such thing. I said that I was happy to keep the status quo that has existed for many years. You said it we should try to make the spelling consistent, and I simply followed through with your suggestion (in spite of the fact that I think it’s nonsense, a waste of everyone’s time, and an unsportsmanlike attitude toward the people who contributed to it for years). You think it’s fine to suddenly turn an article to your variety of English after being started in American spelling and being largely American for a decade, but you think the idea of conforming to the American variety is unreasonable. If you want to turn it to your favorite variety, then it will be necessary to have mediation, because you are being unreasonable and you have been unreasonable ever since your comment of rv one good faith edit by Stephen G. Brown - we should be trying to keep the WP:ENGVAR spelling consistant throughout the article when you first began to turn the article to BrE. —Stephen (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

British editors are hardly a recent thing on Wikipedia and presuming that it was "started in American spelling and being largely American for a decade" is obviously incorrect (see this version from 10 Jan 2002 - the last edit on the day it was first created - where there is one "stories" and one "metre"). It is easy to see that American and British spellings have been mixed freely in this article since the very beginning until I decided to be bold and do something about it in the last couple of weeks. I really didn't expect much of an argument over it. Astronaut (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

JUST PICK ONE - I say we take a vote here and in one week whichever has the most votes, all spelling will be changed to that style and there will be a tag placed on the talk page for its style. I choose American. - Cadiomals (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine, Cadiomals (however, for a week or so, an IP-hopping anon has been trying to convert it to BrE...what’s to stop him from voting as many times as he wants?). American. —Stephen (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought we didn't vote here. It is the strength of your arguments that count not the number of times you state them. How is it when I take the bold step to rationalise the spelling after a decade of nothing being done about it at all, suddenly all these other editors, who have shown little prior interest in the article, come out of the woodwork and start fighting over it? Astronaut (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"Skyscraper" is an American term and first skyscrapers were all American, so American English should be used. Here's one of many, many cites that could provide background ascertain this fact: http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blskyscapers.htm.

This provides an objective basis to choose the language — because the only rationale given not to use American English seems to be simply one editor's personal preference. That's not a valid reason. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, per Wikipedia guidelines here, this shouldn't even be under discussion: "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." As per the January 10, 2002 link above, that is American English. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What a preposterous rationale, that - Skyscraper is an American term and therefore American English should be used. That hardly qualifies as strong national ties considering that the development of the various technologies that led to skyscrapers occurred on both sides of the Atlantic during the late 19th century. As I said nearly two years ago, there was "... no consensus for a long time and when I try to be bold and decide on one, I meet opposition at every turn"; let's hope your efforts are more successful. Astronaut (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a rationale,which is better than no rationale and an arbitrary personal choice. In any event, the point is moot: As I said, though it appears not to have been read, WP:LANGVAR states that "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." As per the January 10, 2002 link above, that is American English. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Fazlur Rahman Khan

This article seems to have become a wholly inappropriate tribute to Fazlur Rahman Khan. While he has played an important part in the history of skyscrapers, and some of the writing is pretty good, there is way too much emphasis on his contribution in this article. The new content added in the the last few days should be split off to a new article specifically discussing the bundled tube. Astronaut (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more here. Khan also should by no means be part of the introduction, that's not remotely justified by his relevance. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is still falsely praising Khan like a god. It's utterly embarassing and outright wrong to tolerate this, tbh. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent excesses. Per my edit summary: "rv excessive aggrandisement of Khan. Fazlur Rahman Khan and Bundled tube both have their own articles; and we also have an article on Skyscraper design and construction. There is no need to repeat much of it here as well". If I had more time I would do more. Astronaut (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You have gone utterly, utterly overboard in this campaign, and in your effort to avoid "excess" and "aggrandizement," you have in fact diminished our understanding of who this architect was. You seem to have an axe to grind against Khan, or perhaps to be enjoying your role of "arbiter of relevance" far too much. In particular, I noticed that the reference to Khan thinking of himself as the building during the design process was removed. Why? This is completely true. And by any measure, a fascinating and important insight/observation about an architect. Here is the direct quote:

“When thinking design, I put myself in the place of a whole building, feeling every part. In my mind I visualize the stresses and twisting a building undergoes.”

Which comes from here: http://drfazlurrkhan.com/professional-milestones/en-r-constructions-man-of-the-year-issue-february-10-1972/

(Though the poster you are attacking was also correct in their secondary citation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.114.64 (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I do also want to add that the use of the word "retarded" as a slur has no place here. You should be ashamed of yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.114.64 (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The point is that this is an article about the skyscraper, not Dr Khan. Yes he should be mentioned here as well, but not to the extent that he has been recently. Fazlur Rahman Khan is notable enough to have his own article, so there is no need to add many paragraphs here as well. For example, the quote of Khan thinking of himself should be in the Fazlur Rahman Khan article, not here. Astronaut (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Four photos of the Willis Tower?

Four of the seventeen photos in this article are of the Willis Tower in Chicago? Why? --KFP (contact - edits) 18:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

See my question immediately above. I suspect the person who added all the unnecessary info about Fazlur Khan, also added all the images of the Willis Tower. Astronaut (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Changing Attitudes Towards Skyscrapers?

It seems that in many urban areas around the world the skyscrapers popularity is actually waning and are being deemed inefficient and uneconomical as many corporations and residential firms look for cheaper land outside of metropolises in less congested areas. Although I have no materials on this topic, it is prevalent when discussing future developments on the subject especially in a regional context. This could work into a paragraph about the future of skyscraper adaptability as well as highlighting some of the major faults and weaknesses of the skyscraper design, of which the info is cluttered.Dirt290 (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources for this? My impression is quite the reverse, with increasing levels of urbanization across the world and the huge number of skyscraper building projects going on - particularly in China, but also Latin America, and some African cities. However, if what you clain is true, wouldn't city centres be increasingly full of empty skyscraper that no one wants to work in or live in? While there is something like that going on in countries affected by the Great Recession, it is largely due to companies closing and the housing market stagnating, rather then a reduction in the popularity of skyscrapers as places to live and/or work. Astronaut (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to change History section to pre-metal / post-metal frames

By far the largest influence on skyscrapers is the use of metal frames. At the moment the History section is split by arbitrary years, and seems to be a very Americanised POV rather than the World View which Wikipedia requires. The split in the History section should not be between "Pre-19th century" and "Early skyscrapers", but between "Stone and brick" and "Early metal frames". Shrewsbury Flax Mill, a mostly metal-framed building from 1797, should be in the latter section, not the former. However I have refrained from being bold, since there is a whole separate article on "Early skyscrapers" (which again seems very Americanised), and that'd need refining to reflect the pre/post metal split rather than the current arbitrary split based on the American commercial revolution of the late 1800s. Damned colonials thinking they invented everything, bloody cheeky chaps, what rotters etc... Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Not so sure about the Americanised POV bit - it can't be denied that there was enormous growth in skyscraper building in the USA during the early 20th century while much of Europe dithered over whether buildings taller then the local church were 'appropriate' for their cities. Only lately has the USA been overtaken by several Asian countries and Europe still seems somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of very tall buildings. However, I do like the idea of perhaps reorganising the history section by looking at the development of various design and construction methodologies (and perhaps renaming it from "history" to something different to discourage a time-based history). You could compliment "Stone and brick" and "Early metal frames" with "curtain wall" and "bundled tube", but bear in mind there is already a Skyscraper design and construction article which seems somewhat incomplete. Astronaut (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated Paragraph

There is a paragraph that is repeated verbatim in both the "Design and Construction" and "Environmental Impact" sections. Please decide in which section the paragraph belongs or split the content appropriately. I am replicating the paragraph below.

The amount of steel, concrete and glass needed to construct a single skyscraper is large, and these materials represent a great deal of embodied energy. Skyscrapers are thus energy intensive buildings, but skyscrapers have a long lifespan, for example the Empire State Building in New York City, United States completed in 1931 and is still in active use. Skyscrapers have considerable mass, which means that they must be built on a sturdier foundation than would be required for shorter, lighter buildings. Building materials must also be lifted to the top of a skyscraper during construction, requiring more energy than would be necessary at lower heights. Furthermore, a skyscraper consumes a lot of electricity because potable and non-potable water have to be pumped to the highest occupied floors, skyscrapers are usually designed to be mechanically ventilated, elevators are generally used instead of stairs, and natural lighting cannot be utilized in rooms far from the windows and the windowless spaces such as elevators, bathrooms and stairwells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.106.158 (talk) 08:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The wording is more appropriate for the "Environmental Impact" section, so I've removed the repeated bit from the "Design and Construction" section. Astronaut (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Advantage steel

These recent edits suggest steel replaced cast iron as a structural material due to its malleability allowing it to be formed into a variety of shapes, and it could be riveted, ensuring strong connections (emphasis added). However, I have seen many riveted cast iron structures with a wide variety of shapes still in use today (see Cast-iron architecture). I think this is much more to do with steel's malleability (and therefore strength under stress) than anything else. Cast iron is strong and heavy, but is particularly poor under tension stresses. Moving to steel allowed the removal of the additional bracing and sheer walls that these shortcomings with cast iron required, therefore allowing a stronger, lighter structure and therefore greater height. Perhaps a better wording and a better source could be used to clarify this bit if the article. Astronaut (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a cited source and integrate this information, that would be great. I can tell you that the information another editor added today, which I then edited, follows what's in the cited source, a professional journal that talks specifically about the riveting making strong connections. Before doing anything, I'd suggest you go to the footnoted source and read what it says there. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I already did take a look at the source. My argument was not really with the riveting making strong connections (I've revised my emphasis above), but with the forming of shapes and the ability to rivet. That is not really an advantage for steel since cast iron can also be cast into a variety of shapes and riveted. The advantage comes from steel's superior strength under tension. I suspect it is just a poor choice of words pulled out for the abstract. I'll look for a better source. Astronaut (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool! It's important to have editors knowledgable in particular fields and able to digest this kind of technical information correctly! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Trolling rampage (the Fazlur Khan guy again!)

Hey, shouldn't we just IP-ban that troll? No soup for you, and you, and you! 119.30.39.100 + 119.30.39.143 + 119.30.39.134 + 119.30.39.134 -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that two pro-Khan accounts were recently blocked for being CheckUser'd sockpuppets of each other, this IP editing could be block evasion. I opened an SPI a few days ago. Seems to be an Bangladesh ISP/university IP range, so probably shouldn't range block the whole thing. --McGeddon (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems like you've cut some valuable and verifiable information out of this page based on thinking it comes just from a "troll." A couple days ago, I read this page and it had this text: "Khan revealed that he often felt he himself was the building when designing a building". Why was this removed? It is found directly in this source, page 5 of this book: he http://books.google.com.bd/books?id=DI_nbAYQvqsC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA3&focus=viewport&vq=khan&dq=fazlur+khan%27s+legacy+towers+of+the+future&output=html_text

In fact, when looking back for this information that you deleted, I found the original quote, which is even better. “When thinking design, I put myself in the place of a whole building, feeling every part. In my mind I visualize the stresses and twisting a building undergoes.” The source for this is here: http://drfazlurrkhan.com/professional-milestones/en-r-constructions-man-of-the-year-issue-february-10-1972/

The poster who put this incredible and very valuable insight about Khan was accurate and their citation was correct. I think you've gone overboard in removing their contributions.

And your use of the word "retarded" is deeply offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.114.64 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You have missed the entire point that I and some others have been trying to make. It is not about the sources you have provided. It is about relevance. Adding quotes of what Dr Khan was thinking, and endless other paragraphs mentioning his achievements might be appropriate in the Fazlur Rahman Khan article, but it is only of perhpheral interest in the Skyscraper article. That is what the links we make between articles are for. If readers of the history of skyscrapers want to read more about Dr Khan, they can click on the link and read a whole article about him. There really is no need to pad out this article with many extra paragraphs praising one man. Astronaut (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@the Khan/IP guy: Sorry for me getting personal, but you're seriously making me go mad. You're constantly pushing all this unnecessary, bloated stuff throughout several skyscraper-related articles without any merit or relevance at all. And you're doing it for more than a year now. Please finally understand that's not how Wikipedia works. You seriously screwed this article with your constant repeating of very little information. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Supertall (300m+) + Megatall (600m+) articles

Skyscrapers taller than 300m are also called Supertalls, those taller than 600m are called Megatalls, see official CTBUH definitions. I think we should create articles for these 2 categories, to give some insight of their development and current buildings at those heights. Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I really dislike both terms and try to avoid them where I can, prefering the simplicity of a "321 m tall skyscraper". Indeed, I once went as far as suggesting 'supertall' was a made-up word (possibly by some over enthusiastic young journalist or skyscraper fanboy) and that it should be removed on sight. And then along came some official definitions and that was the end of my campaign... However, I'm still curious what will happen with the 1000 m Kingdom Tower or some even taller structure in the future... "ultratall" maybe; or what happens when 300 m becomes not at all "super" but just ordinary?

That said, I can see some merit in having a description of the terms based on the official definitions. Perhaps it can be included somewhere in this article, with the terms redirecting there. At one time supertall did point somewhere else. Now I see it points here. As for megatall it rather confusingly (in this context at least) points to megastructure and the very first line says "Not to be confused with Superstructure, Supertall, or Skyscraper". I think some work is needed here. Astronaut (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, thanks for pointing me towards these. Btw, how about "Ubertalls" for 1000m+? :D -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Btw, the terms "Supertall" and "Megatall" originated at the world's largest architecture and skyscraper forum, [http://www.skyscraperCity.com SkyscraperCity.com]. I myself coined them once. You're allowed to rail against me now. I take all the blame. Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect link?

In the section "Trussed Tube and X-bracing", there is a reference to the "Chase Manhattan Bank Building". This is shown as a link. However, if you click on the link, you are sent to an article about the Chase Manhattan building in Queens, not the Chase Manhattan building in lower Manhattan. I think the article is referencing the building in Manhattan. Bunkyray5 (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

14 stories?

The very first sentence reads 'A skyscraper is a tall, continuously habitable building of over 14 floors...' but gives no citation for this, and never even references the 14 story figure again in the Definition section. In fact the Definition section says they just protrude from their environment, or gives a height/story range. Where does this absolute 14 story figure come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.95.183.83 (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Skyscraper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150629192827/http://magicalhystorytour.blogspot.com/2010/08/skyscrapers.html to http://magicalhystorytour.blogspot.com/2010/08/skyscrapers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal → Hobbyist websites

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. McGeddon (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

---

There has been a 14+ year debate on whether the hobbyist websites are notable and warrant an article. The debate is typically poor citations vs a significant number of Wikipedia internal links. Merging the information on these two websites into this article (2-3 sentences) gives these sites some mention and provides a place for the more than 1,000 Wikipedia links.

SkyscraperCity was deleted this week (4th time). SkyscraperPage a smaller site, has the same problems.

I added the section Hobbyist websites and redirected the SkyscraperPage links to it. Wiki-psyc (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• I do not think that the 'hobbyist' websites deserve there own articles but neither to they deserve space in the article beyond a link in 'External Links'. The content put in by User:Wiki-psyc replaced a useful headline of 'Photo Gallery' and included information of an inconsequential nature. Let us discuss these changes here before inclusion of any merged content. Robynthehode (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is the AFD discussion with the consensus to delete, but a strong number of supporters Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SkyscraperCity (4th nomination).

I voted to delete. However, I don't think it makes sense to redirect 1,000 articles to this page without having some mention in the article body of the terms being redirected (SkyscraperPage, SkscraperCity). Is it encyclopedic that that there are a 100 million hobbiests managing a detailed cataloging accurate enough to be referenced over 1,000 times on Wikipedia? The BBC and Londonist reported that these sites were noteworthy (in that they exist). Enough to get a 1-2 sentence descriptive mention. I think it boils down to this. There are a lot of examples of fan clubs listed in articles on Wikipedia. Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Are there really "100 million hobbyists" managing a catalogue on skyscrapers? That sounds a very high figure - roughly one in every 70 people on earth? Hchc2009 (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

1 million - 954,000 - Wiki-psyc (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of issues regarding the proposed merger. The consensus for the Skyscraper City article was for deletion. This seems to be clear to me as it is a clear internet forum with significant problems regarding validity of the information presented. Skyscraper Page is slightly different in that it seems to reference CTBUH and mostly be a place for contributors to create and upload diagrams of tall buildings and towers. I see no reason to merge information about Skyscraper city article information into this article. If inclusion of Skyscraper city is meant to replace or enhance the present photo gallery it does not serve this purpose because by the very nature of the forum it is a minefield of information - difficult to navigate and source useful information and photos. Skyscraper Page however offers additional information to the present article. The skyscraper diagrams seem to be useful extra source of information for a reader coming to the article. The problem is they are user generated but they have been used by various notable publication - inclusion of website mention therefore open to debate. Having checked both websites - Skyscraper City and Skyscraper Page I cannot find any source for Wiki-psyc assertion regarding the number of hobbyists involved in contributing to these websites. The only figure I found was from Skyscraper Page which stated there are 600 registered artists with about half active in creating diagrams. Regarding redirection I don't really see a problem. There is no need to mention in the article content of a site or sites that have by consensus been deleted because they are not reliable sources. Surely the idea in any article is to remove all unreliable sources to make the article better and more authoritative. Just because the forum (Skyscraper City) has been used a 1000 times as a source does not make it a reliable source it just shows the nature of Wikipedia and how some sources (whether reliable or not) are more persistent and popular than others. Robynthehode (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you can't locate the membership numbers. 600 is not accurate. I know you have strong feelings (you reverted the banners twice) - let's hear from some others. Here are the numbers you were looking for:

• 51,832 member, 4,913,933 posts SkyscraperPage (see STATS at page bottom)
• 897,746 members, 90,082,584 posts skyscrapercity.com (see STATS at page bottom)
  

Wiki-psyc (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Wiki-psyc for providing those numbers. And my apologies for reverting your banners. Not my intention. My intention was to revert the content you added only. But now the discussion is at the talk page all is good so others can contribute. Regarding the numbers you have provided they have a limited use as evidence for inclusion of either website in the article. The number of contributors to each site and their number of posts merely shows a number not the activity of the member nor the quality of their contributions. One of the reasons Wikipedia guidelines suggest not using Wikis or other such forums is that they are not reliable sources including itself (you can't use a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article). Sources are all about quality not quantity. It doesn't matter how many people believe the (using an example relevant to this article) Shanghai Tower is the second tallest 'tower' in the world (because 'tower' is in the name) when the reliable source CTBUH says that it is a building not a tower. As a correction 600 is accurate for the number registered artists (with half being active). I took this number from their website. However they do according to the figures you have stated have 51832 members - 'artists' and 'members' must relate to different 'contributors' although I presume 'artists' is a subset of 'members'. You are right of course regarding hearing from other editors but it would be good to hear any disagreements you may have with the points I made in the above. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

From my perspective, the number of times someone has added skyscrapercity.com etc. to a wiki article isn't a good indicator; we risk a circular logic! I'd normally be looking to see how reliable secondary sources treat the topic; do high-quality books etc. on skyscrapers talk about the websites and their impact on our understanding of skyscrapers? If they do, so should we; if they don't, we shouldn't. I haven't done an exhaustive search, but from what I can see, books and articles don't typically make mention of these two websites in that way. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Not selling the idea, just facilitating the discussion... According to the current article SkyscraperPage.com drawings have appeared in National Geographic's website, Wired, Condé Nast, The Globe and Mail Report on Business Magazine. SkyscrperCity had similar credentials. If you do a Googe Scholar search, there are 2,500 entries for photo and data sourced from these sites. There are 60 references with CTBUH, including CTBUH technical papers. A general Google search generates close to 3.8 million listings. Just a 30 second look and I see photos sourced for Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, The Journal of Economic History, and the University of Maryland Architecture Thesis Collection.

To keep this in perspective, we don't need "notability" to add something to an article, the standard is lower for a "mention", and it doesn't need to meet an academic standard, many articles contain "Popular culture" sections. I don't think these sites warrant their own articles - and the recent Afd backs that up. Wiki-psyc (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

People reusing an image from a site isn't the same thing as a secondary source establishing the relevance of the website to our understanding of skyscrapers. I'd agree that the sites don't warrant their own articles, either, by the way. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Take into account that this template exists: {{Skyscraperpage}} Doblecaña (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Skyscraper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110510113118/http://favoritearchitecture.org:80/afa150.php to http://favoritearchitecture.org/afa150.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120723110141/http://skyscrapercenter.com/List/future-tallest-100-buildings to http://skyscrapercenter.com/List/future-tallest-100-buildings

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Skyscraper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140210021749/https://flipboard.com/section/skyscrapercity-bqxHt8 to https://flipboard.com/section/skyscrapercity-bqxHt8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Projected buildings removed

An editor has removed material on future buildings, arguing that there are other, better lists for those. How-ever, I didn't see a cross-link to them. This is the first place to go for them, so if we aren't going to have them here, we definitely should direct the curious user to where we have lists or discussions about future buildings, abandoned projects, etc. Kdammers (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I was the editor that removed most of the future buildings section. It only requires a short description and then a link to the list article that is relevant. Same for the cancelled buildings section which I will remove unless someone objects. This makes managing the Skyscraper article page and the linked lists far easier because two articles do not have to be kept up to date. Robynthehode (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Skyscraper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070605133019/http://www.civenv.unimelb.edu.au/ejse/Archives/Fulltext/200101/01/20010101.htm to http://www.civenv.unimelb.edu.au/ejse/Archives/Fulltext/200101/01/20010101.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101217063145/http://teaching.ust.hk/~civl101/Civl101%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Tall%20Building%20Structures.pdf to http://teaching.ust.hk/~civl101/Civl101%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Tall%20Building%20Structures.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Abu Dubai tower

I notice that the tower in abu dubai is currently largest in the world. Anyone know if there's a tower currently being built that is supposed to be the tallest? Bulbbulb29054 (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Nation's Landmarks

This article makes reference to 10-20 story buildings as being early skyscrapers. To note there is an extremely high building in Belmont Ohio, located in Dayton, and it measures only 11 floors. This is one such example.

Impartial tone of the following paragraph?

"Many buildings designed in the 70s lacked a particular style and recalled ornamentation from earlier buildings designed before the 50s. These design plans ignored the environment and loaded structures with decorative elements and extravagant finishes.[48] This approach to design was opposed by Fazlur Khan and he considered the designs to be whimsical rather than rational. Moreover, he considered the work to be a waste of precious natural resources.[49] Khan's work promoted structures integrated with architecture and the least use of material resulting in the least carbon emission impact on the environment.[50] The next era of skyscrapers will focus on the environment including performance of structures, types of material, construction practices, absolute minimal use of materials/natural resources, embodied energy within the structures, and more importantly, a holistically integrated building systems approach.[48]"

It doesn't say it directly, but from the wording it seems that it is painting the style of 1970s skyscrapers in a negative tone. Especially usage of "loaded" and the last sentence that speculates on the future does not have an encyclopedic tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:8801:E500:0:0:0:EC8F (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Do we consider a any building with 30 underground floor and 15-20 floor above ground as Skyscraper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.192.167.41 (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Skyscraper

Do we consider a 30-40 underground floor and 15-20 above ground floor as a Skyscraper