Talk:Ping An Finance Centre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Skyscrapers (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Pearl River Delta (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Pearl River Delta, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Pearl River Delta. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

Building Suspended[edit]

I removed the (weasel worded) paragraph that stated 'speculation was rife' that building had been suspended because there was no accompanying reference to support this, and seemed to be based upon the contributor's own opinion.

Construction status: under construction[edit]

To editors that are changing the status to "halted": this is not the case. [http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=517647&page=95 The building is currently having its foundation built.] Please do not change the status from "under construction". Merechriolus (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that if people continue to keep changing the status without reading the SSC thread fully, there is a line crossed from being misinformed to vandalizing the page. To that end, please read the SSC thread thoroughly to its current point and stop changing the status away from "under construction".Merechriolus (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
For those people who are checking the skyscraperpage: the data is not up to date. There is direct visual confirmation of construction via the SSC thread. Please please please follow the link above and look through the most recent pages of the thread. Construction is active and ongoing.Merechriolus (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Construction is nearly stopped. SSP says this and I know that from peopole who live there. Some weeks or months ago there was a Chinese press article that says that Pingan Insurance has fincial troubles. So it is halted. Perhaps the shopping center is still under-construction, and some dreamers insist the tower is under-construction. But it isn't! --78.52.58.25 (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
This is why you need to check the thread I posted. There are current images of the foundation's construction. Your chinese article is out of date, because while construction was halted before, construction has restarted. We have direct photographic evidence and testimony from Shenzen residents via my link above. Please discontinue changing the status until you have read that thread. Merechriolus (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The images show the shopping center that is currently builded. Some dreamers instead insist that this is the tower, but it's not. There are two holes and the tower is that one with no activity. SSP pointed that out correctly. --78.52.58.25 (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to make this claim, you will need to provide a direct citation to something that is not a forum post. Please do this before you change the article. I will revert it one final time; do not revert that until you have found non-forum-post evidence that what you say is true: that that hole is both not the skyscraper, and that that hole is literally "on hold" as opposed to just having no activity in it for now. The building's SSP page is out of date in this respect and is not available for a citation.
Because this is an issue under dispute, it needs to be resolved in the talk pages here before any further changes are made. Otherwise, this will become a problem of Edit Warring.
I'd also like to add: the Emporis page says "under construction", so even if the SSP page were not out of date, the conflict would invalidate its use.Merechriolus (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Emporis is totally untrustworthly. They also say Burj al Alam is under-construction (that is bullshit). SSP is always up to date, and as I said, formus contain some dreamers that falisfy the actual facts. --78.52.58.25 (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Emporis is not the source. Skyscrapercity is. They are reporting on the construction using photos derived from Chinese local reports.
As noted before, you have not provided sources outside of the SSP page for your edit. This is not proper wikipedia form. Please present and discuss your sources first, before changing the article. Merechriolus (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict summary[edit]

The Under Cosntruction status of this building is disputed by several users. Their evidence for this comes from the SkyScraperPage page for the building. However, the official sites of the building make no mention of this, and Skyscrapercity and Emporis directly contradict it. The CTBUH even reject it, and confirm its "under construction" status. The weight of this evidence overrides the SSP page:

  • [http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=517647 The Skyscrapercity thread] offers current, real-time updates, and so it overrides skyscraperpage in terms of being current. (Skip to the latest pages for the newer updates)
  • In addition, Emporis lists the building as "under construction". Emporis carries no more weight than SSP does, but is used here to demonstrate how these sites are fallible and, because this indicates a conflict in the sources, an additional source must be found.
  • Furthermore, the CTBUH lists the building as under construction as well.

To this end, anyone seeking to change the "Under Construction" status must find evidence overriding these, essentially as a news article published within the last few weeks, due to the currency of the SSC page. Included in that link are depictions of construction taken only days earlier (it is the 14th as I write this and there are pictures of active construction timestamped from as late as the 7th.) and broadbased understanding amongst the forumgoers that the native Chinese are aware of this building as under construction.

In summary, all sources other than the SSP page, of which there are 3 mentioned here, list the building as under construction. The CTBUH and SSC are both more current and reliable than SSP or Emporis, as well. One conflicting and outdated reference does not override these. To that end, I will be reverting the page to the "Under Construction" state in 24 hours. If anyone wishes to change that, they should reply to a talk page item with their new contradicting evidence, which must be stronger than CTBUH--i.e., a news article published since August 1st.

If people persist in incorrectly changing the page based on a single piece of evidence, I will bring arbitration into the matter. This is not how you edit a Wiki; discourse must be had after any conflict, before changes are made, and the behavior of the users in question has disregarded that.

Merechriolus (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I am adding a fourth piece of evidence to the list: the SSP forums themselves. [thread] offers direct updates on the construction like the SSC thread does, and corroborates the active construction. Merechriolus (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Again, this is the shopping center. Some people instead insist the tower is under construction because they don't want to have ot true that it is on-hold. Construction is halted because Ping An is in financial troubles. Maybe construction of the tower once resumes but for now it is stalled. I know people from Shenzhen that confirmed SSP, they said only one site is busy, and that is the one of the shopping mall, while the one tower is on hold and the other is still in excavtion or planning phase. --78.51.81.130 (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Read the summary given above. If you are saying that this is the shopping center, you need to provide a direct source for that. SSP doesn't say anything about it, and is an invalid source anyway, as said above. Please discuss these edits with me instead of constantly reverting the page.
The people from Shenzen are hearsay and have no bearing on this article. You need an actual source.
Also, from the point of view of the construction, a shopping center does not need these massive piling holes. Common sense indicates that this assertion is incorrect, which is why you need a citation for it.Merechriolus (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Here is an overlay of a recent site update on the site plan. The mall is located over the hole with the ramp. The tower is located over the hole with the massive caissons in it. This hole is the one in which construction is ongoing. Also note the 8 holes for the exterior supercolumns. Scalzi+ | (Talk | contribs) 02:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this. I believe that this finally and absolutely confirms that the tower is the hole under construction? In that case, if I receive no input on the RfC below, I will revert the page in less than twenty-four hours from now. Merechriolus (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ping'An IFC Construction Status RfC[edit]

Should the tower be considered "Under Construction" or "On Hold", according to the evidence presented by each side in the discussions above?Merechriolus (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Can someone provide sources? - I'd be happy to provide some input on this RfC. I've read the discussion above, but I dont see any WP:Reliable sources that discuss the status of the building: either to show that construction has started, or has halted. All the reliable sources I see talk about the building as if it has not yet started construction, except source CTBUH, but even that is very marginal (just a bullet on a skimpy page). There are a couple of blogs that mention it has started, but blogs are not acceptable sources. If there is no major newspaper or magazine that has reported on this skyscraper, that is rather suspicious. What reliable sources state that the building started (or is halted)? --Noleander (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding good sources from a 30-second google perusal, but I'll give it a good in-depth go tomorrow. Don't the forum pages count as primary sources? They have direct photographic documentation of the ongoing construction on the most recent pages, with updates from as recent as last week. The sheer abundance of evidence and discussion that they present makes me think that this article is a very good candidate for effective use of primary sources. (I would have posted some of the recent construction images to the page, but the Wikimedia licensing rules prevent me from doing so.) As for secondaries, I follow skyscraper construction news, and I can tell you, even for a project such as this, news can be very sparse in China. Merechriolus (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I have no objection to an article on a not-yet-started building provided that there are a few significant secondary sources that talk about the building. That is simple WP:Notability. My point is: the sources on this building are very informal, blog-ish, sources. We really need some meatier sources: major newspapers, or major magazines that are independent of the building's owners/builders. --Noleander (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: crystal ball - Also, the WP:Crystal ball guideline suggests that WP should not have articles on not-yet-existent objects. Unless there are concrete sources that demonstrate that construction is underway on the building (or, alternatively, that there are a large number of secondary sources discussing the proposed skyscraper), the article perhaps should be deleted (or merged). Proposed buildings are best mentioned in lists, such as List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Shenzhen#Proposed. --Noleander (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
See my comment directly above yours. There is direct photographic evidence, in abundance (hundreds of photos) of the construction on the Skyscrapercity thread that I linked in my summary, so I think that there is good primary source evidence in this case. Scalzi has also kindly matched that up with a site plan to prove, without a doubt, that that site is the site of the IFC. As for WP:Crystal Ball, I have never seen it applied to the many under-construction skyscraper articles that I've viewed. Buildings are, of course, a unique case among projects. Wikipedia frequently has pages for buildings that actually are on hold or were cancelled very early on, not to mention all the designed towers that never even began construction, so I imagine a tower that is actively under construction should pose no problem. Merechriolus (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think WP editors are permitted to interpret photographs and draw their own conclusions. That would constitute prohibited WP:Original research. The photos could be faked or retouched or just plain misinterpreted. I know that is unlikely, but still .... Look at it this way: if we cannot find a reliable source that says, in plain language "The building is now under construction", what does that indicate? It probably means the building has not yet started construction, OR that the building is not notable. --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
.... and regarding those two examples you cite: buildings that actually are on hold or were cancelled very early on, those both have good WP:Reliable sources that discuss the buildings. I have not yet seen such sources for this building. --Noleander (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Can those who change the status to 'halted', please, stop doing that and so vandalize the page? There are at least 3 credible sources to confirm that this is under construction. So it' a rather overwhelming amount of evidence that it is U/C than not. 23:30, 23 September 2011 (GMT) Who keeps vandalizing this page and changes the status to "halted"? This is really sad, guys. 19:06, 24 September 2011 (GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.211.154 (talk)


All the websites are invalid, because the images prove that there is no progress for years! Just campre it to Shanghai Rower how fast this tower went up. This building is NOT under-construction, there might be some site preperations, but the project is not real unser-construction at this time. There are no tower cranes, only a few workers (they would need a few hunderd to erect this building) and much other machines. I can't see anything of this, so the status is clearly on-hold or site prep. but not real construction. ---92.230.143.101 (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The tower is under construction CTBUH is the most authentic and reliable source and it says the tower is under construction and another source, skyscraperpage also says its under construction. In fact the height of the tower has been increased to 660 meters (As per CTBUH). The progress may not be visible now, as the the tower is in foundation stages / site preparation. The progress might be visible after 3-4 months. You can find the link of CTBUH here: [1] and Skyscraperpage here [2].

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You can use those sources if there is no other information. But in this case, we have several images that prove its not under-construction. CTBUH is completety unreialbe, they have not updated several information. They consider cancelled buildings still on-hold like the Russia Tower or some others, too. Do not blind trust the websites, just open your eyes and see pictures. --85.179.85.101 (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, no matter what the forums show, secondary sources trump forum pictures; second, the pictures show that it is under active construction, via foundation work. [http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=517647&page=102], the most recent forum page as of this post, shows them breaking rings on the piles, lowering rebar into the pit, digging out around piles, and pouring floor leveler on the dirt in places.
So long as there is any work being done on the foundations whatsoever--which there demonstrably is--it is considered under construction. It is very, very slow construction so far, but construction nonetheless.
Allow me to also add that "discussing the edits on the talk page" doesn't mean that you get to revert as soon as you post a reply on the talk page. Any reverts whatsoever can only come after we reach a consensus on the topic; that means that the talk page discussions must be finished before you edit the page. Otherwise, your edits will themselves be reverted, appropriately, as vandalism.Merechriolus (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Article protection and construction status discussion request[edit]

This article has been protected by Beeblebrox for one week due to the continuing content dispute over whether it is under construction or not. During this time, I think it would be appropriate to have a discussion on whether or not the building is under construction. I have posted my position here, and I have informed the Skyscraperpage admins of their out-of-date information, who then changed the Skyscraperpage database entry to show that the building is now under construction. Please note that this means that the Skyscraperpage secondary source now supports the building being under construction, and has been brought up to date, so it can no longer be used as a source for construction being halted.

If you wish to change the construction status, it is absolutely important that it be discussed and resolved by users here on the talk page before any edits are made, due to this being a content dispute. If you have contradicting evidence, please reply and we can discuss it. Merechriolus (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from LikeLakers2, 27 September 2011[edit]

Requesting null edit to purge cache of page and to remove from Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

S'gone now, so meh.  Chzz  ►  04:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
It may seem as such, but Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates shows otherwise. Re-activated. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 18:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 Done. Doublecheck me, but it appears to have worked. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing[edit]

Why is anybody even considering blogs such as Skyscraper Page and Skyscraper City as sources? They are blogs and therefore unsuitable as reliable sources for this article (or any other article). While the pictures on such sites might appear to show something under construction, how do we know the pictures were not taken months ago and only just now uploaded to forums and blogs? I would support changes to the buildings status an other related news ONLY if verifiable in a reliable source - that means recognised news media, business magazines, trade journals, etc with a reputation for fact checking. I would also include the CTBUH and possibly Emporis as reliable sources. I am less sure when it comes to announcements on the official websites of the construction partners and architects, but I'm sure consensus can easily be reached on the usefulness of such primary sources. Astronaut (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I've actually recently just found a nice secondary source on the article, which I added on my revert a few minutes ago, but let me also point out that this article is something of an exception to normal citation quality; it is clearly a very important building, in that it will be the second tallest structure on earth when finished, but there is very little news about it anywhere, especially for English speakers. Before this article that I found had been published, we had no articles at all to go on. That said, Emporis and CTBUH are reasonable to use as secondary sources as you said.
Because of that, the primary sources of the forums are often all we have to go on. Though you are right to distrust them, they tend to be more accurate than they might otherwise be, and I've never even heard of a picture being posted under an incorrect date. Applying that to the fact that you'll often times have as many as half a dozen separate people posting pictures that are said to be up to date, not contradicting eachother, and the probability that the photos are reliable increases. Similarly, the consensus of the forum-goers, many of whom are architecturally knowledgeable due to the niche aspect of skyscraper construction fans, is also well-thought out and often reliable.
So while I don't like primary sources any more than you, I also find that they are often times all that are available to go on in this case, and should not be taken lightly. All of the secondary sources outside of corporate press releases also essentially rely on the forums anyway.
A final point that I want to make is that, though I now have a new secondary source saying that the building is under construction, even if that source was not available the burden of proof of the building's construction status actually falls on saying that construction is halted; there was never a source for that assertion other than the previously incorrect skyscraperpage, which itself was only based on forumgoers' concerns about a temporary halt during some gaming event that Shenzen was having.
All I have is sources saying that it is under construction; there never were any sources saying otherwise, cited within this article. This is all irrelevant now, of course, because there are current sources saying under construction--but before anyone asks how it can be changed from "halted" to "under construction", we should ask whether there's a case for it ever having been called "halted" in the first place. So if someone wants to change it back to halted, they have a *lot* of proof and talk-page discussion to go through first, which is why I'm annoyed that these reverting IPs won't come and discuss on the talk page.Merechriolus (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Forums are not reliable sources, however I believe this is? [3] I realize it does not say the name, but this will be the tallest structure in china no? The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
That would be a reliable source if it mentioned the Ping An IFC; am I missing that in the article? But yes, the IFC will be the tallest structure in china when finished, and, as far as I'm aware, the second tallest in the world after the Burj Khalifa.Merechriolus (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

from what i have been able to research this building never quite really was in true prodcution status, much like that "china zun" building that marks the latest addition to an alleged new "china supertall" to be built in beijing. the measly article from chinadaily.con.cn shows some excarvators standing in line suggesting a groundbreaking ceremony. i wonder when china is gonna crash with all of that bogus construction going on. most of the skyscrapers errected in the past 5 years still remain largely unoccupied with some even completely empty. it is a charade! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.87.70.12 (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Rename suggestion[edit]

Suggesting renaming the article from "Ping'an International Finance Center" to "Ping An Finance Center". The latter appears to be the official nomenclature, from KPF http://www.kpf.com/project.asp?S=1&ID=163 and CTBUH http://skyscrapercenter.com/shenzhen/ping-an-finance-center/54/ 61.10.224.81 (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ping An Finance Centre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 14:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


Review to come. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 10, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: This article is written very choppily. The formatting and naming of the sections is askew, many of the sections should be subsections or simply subsumed into other sections. They also need expansion.
2. Verifiable?: Many claims and sentences, even some entire sections, don't have proper citations or references. All claims need to be adduced by valid sources.
3. Broad in coverage?: As touched upon earlier, many sections seem incomplete. Alot of information is lacking. For a building of this scale and scope, more info is out there. It needs to be incorporated into the article. The lead must also be more representative, and alot longer. Also anything mentioned in the lead must be mentioned in the body.
4. Neutral point of view?: Seems fine here.
5. Stable?: Yes.
6. Images?: All of them check out.

Regretfully, I have to quick fail this article, given the plethora of hurdles to reaching GA status that loom in front of it. Hopefully we will see this article back again on the nominations page, closer to GA readiness. It definitely is a fantastic building, so I personally would like to see this article improved. Keep at it. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.—

To Robynthehode[edit]

I think something in this page must change. Like: “The Ping An International Finance Centre is equipped with 33444444 double deck elevators,[5] with its Destination Control going at speeds of up to 10 m/s.” Do you think that “33444444” is a correct number? QBYQ7 (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

QBYQ7 Yes that is clearly vandalism. Sorry if I reverted edits of yours that are clearly of this type (I didn't have time to check all your edits as you did 7 in a row) and please change them. Great that you want to engage with the process and improve this article. For other edits such as the change in the building name or other potentially contentious changes please follow my advice from your talk page about following Wikipedia policy regarding original research and providing verifiable reliable sources. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Conflict between sources[edit]

Here are 2 websites. pafc-sz.com Slide to the PAFC and then you can find it. Here is the article (CHN) 平安金融中心总高600 米,楼高118 层,共包含四 大业态。 发展商:平安不动产 商业体量:约80,000 平方米 整体规模:约500,000 平方米 车位数量:逾1,500 车位超大泊车容量 项目地址:中国广东省深圳市福田区益田路与福 华路交汇处 (ENG) Total height of 600 meters, Ping An Financial Center building has 118 floors, a total of four Big business. Developers: Ping An Property Commercial size: approximately 80000 square meters Overall size: approximately 500000 square meters Large number of parking Spaces: more than 1500 parking Spaces parking garages

shenzhenfreesky.com This website is still under construction, sorry. QBYQ7 (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for finding and sharing the website. This provides alternate information but may not be decisive. Please see the CTBUH article for this building here [4]. The building is called the Ping An Finance Centre in the article but the owner / developer is called the Ping An Financial Centre Construction and Development. The height is also stated as 599.1m. Conflicts like this between sources means that editors have to make a decision on which reliable source to use. But the usual practice, I believe, is to stay with the current version of an article until this has been discussed by other editors or further reliable sources are found to support the change. We could open an RFC (Request for comment) so other editors can offer their views and make a decision on this conflict between sources. Please note that CTBUH (Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat) is seen as an authorative source and used widely across Wikipedia and in other media (newspapers for example). You also do not need to address your comments directly to me in the title of the discussion or start a new section each time you have new information. Titling a section is best based on the subject of the discussion and if you are directing a comment directly to another editor you can just copy their user name link and place it at the start of your comment. Hope that helps. Robynthehode (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

To Robynthehode[edit]

But the observation deck of the Ping An International Financial Centre is indeed on its 116th floor, 541 meters. I don't know how I can show the photos of the entrance to the observation deck I took. There are the height and floor of the observation deck.

QBYQ7 (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
QBYQ7 You don't need to keep creating new sections directed to me personally. The discussion above can be continued in the same section by using ':' colons to indent each comment. Your comment re the observation deck and how you believe it is at the height you think it is is original research which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Please, as I stated before, read WP:OR and the various other links I mentioned on your talk page. Wikipedia is not based on the belief, research, or other 'facts' that editors think are true. Wikipedia instead is based on third party reliable, verifiable sources. I know its frustrating. You may even, indeed, be correct about the height of the observation deck; but until you can provide a source that states this that positively shows that the current source used is incorrect (CTBUH) then you will have to leave the height and floor number as it is. I would suggest reading more about how to edit Wikipedia and spend some more time finding other reliable sources. Of course you can always open an Rfc (Request for comment) as I mentioned on your talk page if you feel I have not helped or you want other editors to comment. Robynthehode (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)