Talk:Skyscraper

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)

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. .

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)

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)

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)