Talk:Skyscraper
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance on the assessment scale. |
[edit] Please control the amount of images being placed in the article
We appreciate your help to the article. I honestly find it's messing up the layout abit and has left a Big, big gap in the center, just below the list of skyscrapers chart. We could possibly re-arrange them, or possibly remove some which are less of a "priorty", if you know what I mean, or maybe an Image Gallery.
Thanks
Someformofhuman 00:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Getting a little ridiculous
A image has the following text under it "The JP Morgan Chase Tower in Houston, Texas at 305m is the tallest five sided tower in the world." Is this necessary? Should we start stating the tallest 3, 4 and 6 sided towers in the world? Ednel 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, I think some of these can actually be removed. Even the rest of the images with their so called "agenda", if you know what I mean. Put it simply, I just find that there are too many unecesarry stuff in the article.
[edit] History of tallest skyscrapers
How can the article state that the Home Insurance Building is the first skyscraper and the box list the Equitable Life Building? Both were included in the original draft so I'm assuming there's a reason.Ando228 18:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Building Images
Moved those images here because they were messing with the article layout. Already have one image of the Petronas towers. No need for a duplicate. KyuuA4 19:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC) ...
[edit] Misc
Removed: "Another well used definition is a habitable building of 150 metres/495 feet in height."
This information is missing?
1) Who defined this criteria? Who uses it? How widespread it is? Why 150 metres exactly?
2) What is "habitable building"? I.e., is CN Tower, with its observation deck, habitable or not? If it is, what's the difference between "scyscraper" and "tower" then?
---
Removed from the Skyscraper page:
This list is almost certainly out of date. Please correct it!
- The CN Tower in Toronto is the world's tallest free-standing structure and is recognized by the Guiness Book of World Records as the tallest building in the world, why is it not listed on this page? it's 447m (1,465ft.) tall measuring to the sky pod, the highest level where people can go inside the building, so it should be #3 on the list even when you discount the antenna. http://www.cntower.ca/
- I guess the previous compiler's rules exclude the CN tower completely, as it is an antenna, and they don't count antennae.
FUCK THAT!
- But not all of the tower is antenna; I specifically limited the height I listed above to be that of the highest human-habitable floor rather than the top of the antenna. The main page says that this is a list of the tallest buildings, and also that these are all the buildings over 300m, so the CN Tower wouldn't be excluded under that description. I think it should either be included, or the criteria for its exclusion should be made explicit.
What about Centrepoint Tower in Sydney? Its 326m high... And its not an antenna (it has an observation deck and revolving resturaunt at the top, along with communications equipment)... although, I don't know if the 326m is to the roof or the the top of the antenna-like spire (IIRC, its not actually an antenna) on the roof... (Another source I just found says its only 305m high... but thats still above 300m.)
Also, maybe we should mention the Rialto Towers? There only about 250m tall, but they are the tallest office building in the Southern Hemisphere (though not the tallest building...) -- SJK
- That's the trick. Those wiley chambers of commerce will add another 10 feet of ornamental mast and call it the tallest! I once read an idiosyncratic distinction between 'skyscrapers', 'towers', and 'radiomasts' - Skyscrapers have to have inhabitable space for at least 80% of their height (big radiomast on top is not a disqualifcation, in other words); towers are nothing but an elevator shaft with a restaurant on top even if they also broadcast (sounds like Centrepoint is one of those; CN and the Space Needle in Seattle certainly are); and radio towers are just that with no other occupants. I like it, but I can't find it on my shelves (I unloaded most of my 20th c. architecture a few moves ago). However, I've never seen another attempt to quantify skyscraper vs. tower. I hate "structure" as a synonym for "building" - the 'structure' is the system which holds the building up. But that's a pedantic distinction. --MichaelTinkler
Well, the bottom so many floors of Centrepoint Tower are 10-20 floors of shopping (and I think offices). And then the floors below end, and its just a thin tower, with lift shafts, fire stairs and services for a big distance, and then you get to the top bit, which is wider and is something like 4 or 5 stories high... and then theres more stuff on top of that (during the Sydney Olympics, they had giant statutes on top, from which they launched fireworks...) But its probably uninhabitable tower for more than half its height... so I suppose, by that definition, its not a skyscraper, just a tower... -- SJK
The table that was previously on this page was pretty much cut and paste in, including explanatory notes, from [1]. This is not only copyrighted (though the information, of course, isn't, the presentation certainly is), it is copyrighted by a potential competitor of Wikipedia--someone who has a financial motivation to try to sue us for violations like this. Please be careful about things like this. --LMS
I guess it's slightly moot considering the original table has been removed, but if and when another "Tallest buildings" table gets added there should be a column indicating the building's classification; eg, "communication antenna" "office building" "tourist attraction" etc. That way all the various towers can be listed together, compared easily, and there will be no more war or strife in the world.
An excellent idea! Moving to the talk:Worlds tallest buildings -- The Anome
[edit] term derivation?
Who coined the term skyscraper? When was it first used? Kingturtle 19:53, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
-
I know that the term was first used to describe the buildings being built in New York, because it seemed like they touched the sky.
[edit] Incorrect drawing
The "comparison" drawing at the bottom, showing building silhouettes, is an incredibly good idea, but the numbers on it don't match the numbers in the table above, and I am pretty sure the Petronas towers are taller and larger than illustrated when compared to the Sears Tower in the same drawing. Tempshill 17:13, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Strange one. Why is Petronas Twin Towers the second tallest building in the world then mentioned as disputed in the history of the world's tallest? Seems like US-centricity again.
- Conventionally, decorative structures count toward height, but antennas do not, giving the Petronas Towers in Malaysia, built in 1997, at 1,483 feet (452 m) each, the official lead. [2]
Shouldn't the building be in? Mandel 11:43, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Petronas only held one of the four main height categories but was shorter in the other three, and as a result the 'official' status for the general worlds tallest title is disputed. Greyengine5 06:19, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
-
-
- It was disputed by many peoples. There is also a dispute about whether the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) (located in Pennslyvania (U.S)) verdicts are correct - and, either way, whether they are popularly accepted or not is another matter. In the case of petr., even using CTBUH guidline results in it taking only 1 of 4 of their defined height categories- something which has lead to mixed popular acceptance of a general title such as 'heighest'. Greyengine5 17:11, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- But people dispute over everything, generally. Are we going to overrule the arbritration of CTBUH just because a general no. of Americans disregard it? It seems the highest possible arbitration body is overruled for no good reason, even though it was consensual amongst the highest body. Mandel 13:13, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
The Old Town, in Edinburgh, Scotland, is home to several buildings of 10 or more stories, dating from the 15th, 16th & 17th centuries. This would seem to predate the skyscrapers of Chicago by a considerable margin. The city wall in Edinburgh precluded extending buildings laterally, so the burgeoning population had no choice but to build upwards. It makes for a quite unique cityscape.
This is also the case of Lancashire, 12 floor tall woolen mills built with metal frames in the 18th century. Lets not forget the Grand Midland Hotel in London. 9 hotel floors plus lobby and plant floor, it had lifts working (steam powered hydraulics), steel frame and opened in 1872. At the time the tallest secular building around. In terms of the modular design used in Chicago on the first towers there this was a direct copy of the Oriel Chambers in Liverpool which you can read about here, the date is 1864 for that - its not a skyscraper but it is a modern office building in every sense of the word. We can go back even further, there's plenty of more ancient buildings which were over 10 floors tall, some cities had whole streets of them. This article is nothing more than an american-centric view of architecture which is totally utterly wrong, just check out Yemen.
- The article is a description of "skyscrapers" which are commonly defined as having a frame rather than masonry bearing walls. The Roman insulae, the Yemen mud-brick houses, and the buildings in Edinburgh (I'm unfamiliar with Lancashire) are constructed with masonry bearing walls and, mostly, wood-joist floors. They are tall buildings, some of them of notable architecture, but if such buildings are skyscrapers, then the term is pretty much meaningless. --Donald Friedman 21:59, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
It depends on your definition of skyscraper - this article defines it as "The word skyscraper was originally a nautical term for a tall mast or sail on a sailing ship. Today the word is used exclusively to refer to a tall habitable building, usually higher than 152 metres (500 feet). A skyscraper is also sometimes referred to as a highrise, a term which is generally used to refer to a residential building." Also, the definition in Merriam-Webster is "a very tall building" - in general, when people use this term, are they really concerned with the technicalities of construction or the height of the building? I've always recognised it it refer to the height, not the construction method. In any case, whichever definition you are using still means that the worlds first skyscrapers were not in Chicago.
- If you use the definition you quoted from the article, then none of the Edinburgh, Roman, or Yemeni structures count as skyscapers because of height. Personally, I think 150 meters is too high a cut-off, but I think it's important to be consistent. When the word entered use with respect to buildings, it was in reference to 10- and 11- story buildings in NYC and Chicago, most of which had bearing-wall structure. Few people would consider those to be skyscrapers today, which suggests that the word has to be used in a time and geographical context.
- If you use the M-W definition, why isn't the Campanile San Marco in Venice a skyscraper?
- I'm not arguing for Chicago primacy. I'm saying that "tall" is subjective, "skyscraper" has quite different definitions to architects and engineers on the one side and the public on the other (see the CTBUH discussion above), and that the interest expressed in both popular and professional literature has included technology as well as height. Since I don't believe there's a "first skyscraper," I really don't care what building gets called that. For years the Home Insurance building in Chicago had that title, despite a ten-story height and exterior wall that bore their own weight. The Lancashire mills mentioned above were transitional structures, as was Home Insurance. I have severe doubts that the Grand Midland Hotel (with which I'm unfamiliar) had a steel frame in 1872. That does not accord with known U.K. construction history. I suspect that it had steel beams, which were certainly available at that time, and maybe some interior steel columns, although I'd like to see a source. --Donald Friedman 16:45, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
im afraid youre wrong donald. not only did it have a full metal frame but it wasnt the first. the victorians were very into their metal framed buildings, an example is the natural history museum. its only 58m tall but look at the pictures on wikipedia of the interior, see the steel structure holding up the ceiling? why doesnt it accord with known uk construction industry the use of prefabricated metal structures were pioneered by the british in the 1851 exhibition, just look at crystal palace. the grand midland hotel had all the following - were steel, reinforced concrete, water pumps, elevators. it also had fire doors, revolving doors. it uses 60 million bricks and 9000 tons of steel in the hotel building. it was also the first building to have those that was over six floors tall being 9 floors, they actually lopped several floors off it to limit the cost, had they not done that itd be over 100m tall. if anyone can find an earlier example of a building that has all the things a skyscraper has then lets hear it.
[edit] Definition of Skyscraper
I think the 500 ft/150 m standard is a bit steep. I used to work in a 27-story building that was about 300 feet (90 m) high, and it felt like a skyscraper to me. Personally, I'd just say that any building with more than 20 or 25 stories is a skyscraper. Funnyhat 05:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
-
Yes, buildings that height can seem tall enough to be a skyscraper. I agree.
-
I disagree. I think a "true" skyscraper is a building of at least 150m.
[edit] Quote
There was some discussion of the quote on the Village pump here, and, so far as I can see, no real conclusion. I put the quote back, because I think it makes it a better article. It's not POV, it introduces the subject, and is in line with WP:IAR! We should not be afraid to boldly ignore style guides occasionally in the rare places where doing so improves the article. Hope you don't mind! Trollderella 23:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "First" Skyscrapers
This article has one major flaw in that it doesn't mention the Ingalls Building in Cincinnati, OH (built 1903). While the late 19th century buildings including the Home Insurance Building in Chicago through the Park Row Building in NYC were major steps forward in building design, it is not entirely accurate to refer to them as "skyscrapers". The more appropriate term would be "proto-skyscraper". The reasoning here is that those buildings constructed between 1885 and 1899 are *not* the same structures we now refer to as skyscrapers. Specifically, one of the key elements of a skyscraper is reinforced concrete -- an item that is missing from the late 19th century structures listed in this article. However, the Ingalls Building did contain this feature in it's design and was the first structure ever to do so. Virtually every high rise building in the world is derived from the Ingalls Building design whereas the same cannot be said for earlier, more "basic" (though very successful) attempts such as Chicago's Home Insurance Building and it's proto-skyscraper brethren. [On a final note, please let me point out that I am not an expert on this topic and that I post this information in hopes that someone who can cite sources will see this and add an appropriate section to this article. Though to be honest, I'm very surprised this hasn't already happened considering these facts show up frequently in high school history classes and are taught in virtually every collegiate architectural and engineering program I've ever heard of.] stereoisomer 16:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC/GMT)
[edit] Photograph in "Top 15 by pinnacle"
Would anyone be able to provide a photo' of the Sears Tower from a similar angle but without the lean? JDH Owens talk | Esperanza]] 10:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] definition of skyscraper
well, on the german wiki-page, there is a similar discussion about the correct definition of skyscraper and its height.
there is also a definition for the skyscrapers with a height of 150m in the article. i guess the author used the same source, but he doesn´t gave any quotes and any reason for this defined height.
the only, correct definition of a skyscraper in germany is, that minimum one habitable level must be over 22m over groundfloor; caused of the fire rescue stairs of the firefighter, that just reached a height of 22m. nowaday they are able to reach up to 35m, but the law isn´t changed.
so i hoped to get some more information, here in english wiki, but here is the same discussion :(
-- Mimar 09:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] WTC
Doesn't the use of the word demolished there seem a bit out of place, considering "demolition" has connotations of a controlled, planned destruction - as was the case (I'm assuming) in all the others in that table? I changed it to destroyed (w/interlink), I guess someone changed it back (but at least kept the interlink) for consistency's sake... --Tothebarricades 10:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- I heartily agree. "Destroyed" may be a better term. Given all the 9/11 conspiracy stuff floating around the Internet, "demolished" is a poor choice of word, regardless of whatever replacement might be chosen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.129.194 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly agree as well, it is awkward to note that it says "demolished", but unfortunately reliable external source, proof and citation are a must to proof this and would be a more important issue to take note of. As said, we follow sources, and not our own perception of what we think it should be or based on a situation that occurred to it. As stated at the bottom, "sources:emporis.com" we have to follow it. Also, on Emporis and on CTBUH, the statutes are limited and does not have a "Destroyed" category. Hence, the very status that is even close to its meaning is "Demolished".
See the statuses: http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=1worldtradecenter-newyorkcity-ny-usa As noted by emporis, Status: Demolished
[edit] Modified placement of the Petronas Towers image
Because the original layout was very ugly in a 800x600 monitor resolution (even with the browser set to full screen), I put the Petronas Towers image into a separately tabled and specially formatted placeholder, so that it wouldn't be able to block text in the table /current look.
The former ugly version can be seen in here.
The current solution has the "Tallest skyscrapers" table lowered a bit from its text above. Additionally, if the image placeholder does overlap into the large table (in case the viewport's width gets reduced, either through activating a sidebar or the user requiring to have windows with reduced widths) , then I set the text background to be very slightly opaque, so that text in the first rows of the large table could still be seen, somewhat... And that it wouldn't be so ugly either.
-Mardus 13:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Buildings over 150m
I updated this to reflect the fact that Hong Kong has more buildings over 150m than New York. Can someone help me put these references in? I can't get it to work properly. Hong Kong - http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/sk/li/?id=101300&bt=9&ht=2&sro=201 New York - http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/sk/li/?id=101028&bt=9&ht=2&sro=181
That Hong Kong list appears to have quite a lot of duplicates, whereas the NY list has none or very few. Are we sure these are really separate buildings? What are the criteria? --Nomenclaturist 17:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Shanghai has the most buidings over 150m in the world. I have no reference though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.75.236.216 (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] edinburgh old town
decent picture showing some historical "highrises" in edinburgh here: http://noah.typepad.com/photolog/DSCN2486.jpg .. anyone want to research copyright and include it?
[edit] Milwaukee City Hall
I'm not sure the 108-meter Milwaukee City Hall belongs in the history of tallest skyscrapers section. Only the lower half of the building has fully occupiable floors; the rest is a bell tower. And there were many bell towers (even some medieval ones) that were higher than 108m. --Opie 05:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Small Suggestion
Would it be better to include the country names for some of these buildings, and not just the cities?
[edit] Should there be a section on skyscrapers which are planned to be built?
There are so many skyscrapers that are planned to be built we should have a section on it. Yes?No?87.113.24.102 19:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest adding a "proposed" category for the status section of the chart of the highest 'scrapers. Perhaps the categories for buildings which have not yet been built could include "in construction" or "in development". That way we could show what will be happening in the world of 'scrapers in the future. Comments? Azlib77 07:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, when I first entered into this section, I feel that there should be a section of proposed skyscrapers. I have complied information over the years, and I will be writing a new level 2 headline: "Proposed Skyscrapers". Then there will be a list of proposed skyscrapers and etc... Whatever that you would like to edit is great.
[edit] Removing Book Reference
I removed "Weinberg, David. Towering Mirrors, Mirroring Towers. New York: Glitterati Incorporated, 2006. ISBN 0977753123" because I believe it to be linkspam. Please see User_talk:66.108.157.73.
[edit] Safety Section
Because of 9-11, there has been a lot of talk about whether skyscrapers are safe. I think a section on this might add to the article. Thoughts? Azlib77 07:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quotes font size
Hi
I was wondering the if the font size of the skyscraper quotes to be bigger? Say like medium size. I've also added 4 new quotes, hope you can contribute more.
Thanks.
Stefan
- I agree, frankly, I liked it when the article opened with a quote. I know, I know, it was non-standard, but it was only one article, and a little whimsy every now and again wouldn't kill anyone. Trollderella 17:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Frankfurt Skyline
Not every little edit has to be discussed, but well, if you wish. The picture does not add relevant new information, the article is cluttered with way too many pictures (Wikipedia is not a gallery). The picture leads to an unproportional overrepresentation of Frankfurt and the Commerzbank tower. And its size is inappropriate. 600px width is fine for a panoramic image, but this a 4:3 picture. My suggestion stands, let's throw one of the Frankfurt pics out (and possibly other pics as well, again: WP:NOT). If you insist on keeping the new pic at least reduce the thumb to a reasonable size. --Dschwen 13:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I can bring a solution to your discussion. I recently visited Frankfurt. In my opinion Frankfurt is very popular with skyline lovers all over the world and the city itself is beautiful, too. I doubt there's any comparable skyline in Europe. Therefore, I added a new picture which is a bit smaller and which does not emphazise the Commerzbank tower but the entire skyline.
[edit] Skyscraper definition
I believe that the set cutoff limit for a skyscraper which was raised to 150 meters (approx 500 feet) was way too high regardless of whether it was set with an eye to the new record heights the new generation of far-Asian or middle east towers are expected to break.
Notably, the 150 meter limit leaves out historical buildings or modern urban landmarks like the Pirelli building in Milan (approx 130m), the Centrepoint and the Barbican Towers in London (approx 123m - above 40 floors each) or other significant buildings that were built as skyscrapers, look like skyscrapers and have a significant impact on their respective cities skylines.
Regardless of what extremely tall buildings are under massive construction in some particular locations, for the majority of the cities worldwide, a 150m-tall building is a significant and iconic addition to their skyline. Also, a 100m-tall building corresponds to 30 floors in many cases especially when referring to residential blocks. It is rather weird that 30, 40 story buildings or even taller are excluded from the definition of a skyscraper. The built environment worldwide does not look exclusively like Shanghai, New York or Dubai. Gm2263 12:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have some links with this definition? I never read tath the was 100m limit, and I think that the most common and acepted limit is 500 ft. Remember that we can't add original research in Wikipedia. I have done some google searches with this results:
266 Skyscraper height limit "500 ft" 785 Skyscraper height limit "500 feet" 521 Skyscraper height minimum "500 feet" 178 Skyscraper height limit "150 meters" // +10 with "152 meters" +2 with "152.5 meters" 8 Skyscraper height limit "333 ft" 8 Skyscraper height limit "333 feets" 3 Skyscraper height minimum "333 feet" 557 Skyscraper height limit "100 meters" // "100 meters" is a very common word and can add false results.
- I think that the most common heigth is 500 ft (or 152m aprox.) and this is the limit that was writed in the article one month ago. You only have one edition, and you haven't left references whith this limit.
- I think that we must revert the edition, because it can be a original research or a personal opinion (pov).
- Sorry if I have been boring, and if my english is dificult to read.--212.183.251.207 18:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Other wikipedias have a 500 ft limit, I think that 100 m is false.--212.183.251.207 10:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- It appears to be relative to the other buildings around it.
-
-
-
- " 1. a relatively tall building of many stories, esp. one for office or commercial use.
- 2. Architecture. a building of exceptional height completely supported by a framework, as of girders, from which the walls are suspended, as opposed to a building supported by load-bearing walls. "
-
-
-
- The World Almanac also lists buildings over 300 ft. as notable. - Marc Averette 15:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes but It list them as "notable", and 300ft is 91.5m not 100m. I think that 100m is a point of view of one user, but isn't a criteria as accepted as 500ft, but I can't change it. If we write a "minimum" height, we must write 500ft, not 100m (or 300ft), because 500ft is a more common criteria than the other two.--212.183.251.207 00:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- The World Almanac also lists buildings over 300 ft. as notable. - Marc Averette 15:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Water pressure
How is water pressure maintained at the top of skyscrapers? Edward 17:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- pumps and storage tanks. Trollderella 15:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Accuracy and choice of words in these statements?
I question the use of the word "self-sufficiency" when efficient would suffice.
Also I'm not sure that this statement is accurate: "Today, however, many of the tallest skyscrapers are built more or less entirely with reinforced concrete." I suggest removing 'however' as the use of reinforced concrete is not contrary to the use of steel as implied, but is simply an alternative. I also seriously doubt that "many of the tallest is correct." If it is then we need to see a source. On the contrary I would suggest "Some shorter skyscrapers are built more or less entirely with reinforced concrete." 202.127.11.190 00:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] removed quote
I removed this quote from the quotations section:
"A chair is a very difficult object. A skyscraper is almost easier. That is why Chippendale is famous." —Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
Since it's really about chairs, and not at all about skyscrapers. 68.164.34.243 18:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- re-added back quote. He is comparing Chippendale and a skyscraper together. Please read again and understand his intention of the quote before even removing it.
- Someformofhuman 00:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ancient "Skyscrapers"
I think the article's history might benefit from a small mention of Shibam, which has proto-skyscrapers dating from the 16th century. While they probably didn't influence the development of modern skyscrapers, I think they should be mentioned, because people interested in skyscrapers may find those interesting, in that they resemble skyscrapers so much atleast superficially. Brentt 12:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] To Someformofhuman
Show me the reason why "Image:Osaka city view 02.jpg" isn't really a skyline "at all". Your sense is all ? Look at other articles. 219.9.130.23 12:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- First, this isn't a place to ask somebody personal requests like your headline title "To: Someformofhuman".
- Secondly, I will not answer your question until you re-phrase your rude sentence. Also, to say I have no sense at all, though I am a kind man, I do not tolerate rude bashful insults here. This isn't the place to rash somebody. Please ask nicely and read the rules. You have been warned.
Someformofhuman 03:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Transferring Skyline Imagery to Skyline article
There are too many images in the article that might clog the professional layout of the page. So, I proposed the idea of transferring (it's not really a merger, but a transfer) all the images to the Skyline article. There is a gallery there that the images here might be put to good use. This could help to dissipate page loading time.
However from what I read the Skylines Discussion page, there seem to be a proposal to transfer some images to respective articles and not every image to be cluttered in the Skyline article. I do not know if they allow the images here to be transfered there, as there seem to be so many, but I'm asking your opinions now. Should they be remained where it belongs to, or should we do a transfer to that article? We could probably replace some of the images at Skyline with better ones from here, to be put to good use.
Opinions, anyone? Someformofhuman 11:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- My opinion would be to keep the images in this article. The article gives the pictures a context, and the images help enhance the article. KTo288 00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I see your point... Anyone else? It seems to be so hard getting opinions now adays... sigh*
-
SomeFormOFhuman
00:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Transfer. Skylines are a broader topic than skyscrapers (no pun intended), and I personally think that panoramic views of skylines are more suited to the current gallery-style photo-article. I am not convinced that someone looking for skyscrapers would automatically want to read about skylines as well, or vica versa. So I say move the pictures. Gunstar hero 13:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- What would someone looking for city panoramas put in the search box. I contend that skylines is not the first thing they would put into the search box but something more in line with "New York skyscrapers","Hong Kong skyscrapers" etc or maybe cityscapes. Than again I suppose we can make the move and put a disambig at the top of the page. KTo288 13:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Yeah, at first my intention was to place a few panoramic examples of how skyscrapers are powerful tools to transform cities into skylines, hence the theme about skyscrapers was my original intention... It started out just two or three pictures, and all of them were chosen by myself and personally I think that was good enough, and everyone seem to agree with that. But that was years ago... As Kto288 said in his first post, it enhances the article, and I think well, I think it's really enclyopedic to show that skyscrapers are power tools of indentity and representation, but ever since now, people are abusing the system, and turning it into some... well I am at a lost of words. Well I'll be honest, it has been becoming a dumping ground of skylines from all over the World, when just a few good examples would be great enough to show its concept about skyscrapers transforming and defining a city skyline... But now, well it's a little spammerish I would think... Maybe we should just try to reduce some. But well, then again, issues might arise.... Who knows what others might think?
Well again if it was removed some of my works will be gone from the article too, especially I went all out to photograph the picture of the Singapore Skyline... Ain't it good to see it? :-) On second thought, maybe we should handpick some of the best shots and save it here. Because I know at the Skylines article, many were requesting some of the images to be removed. Maybe that could be one of the reasons why people dumped all the images here instead of there, because they have no place to put up their photos I guess...
Well, an openmind to suggestions is a great mind!
SomeFormOFhuman
15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, maybe we'll just handpick a few good ones. IMO, some photos are horible. Only a few of them. 121.7.0.203 15:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
SomeFormOFhuman
00:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- There is no criteria for a "top ten skyline" and images shouldn't be added or subtracted based on that since it is by nature biased with regard to a person's personal and geographic experience. (although I do think skyline images should go to the skyline article but just removing a couple of skylines because a person doesn't think they are in the top ten is very bias editing IMO. UB65 (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I saw that IP address mentioning about whether top 10 skylines, which I think it's very POV. I had enough of this going on. I might as well scrap the entire section for good?
Someformofhuman Speak now! —Preceding comment was added at 06:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- what if the section was just expanded text-wise and pointing to skyline and the images removed or just one left. (of course which one to choose will be another nightmare.) Maybe a stub could be made about how skyscrapers affect the transformation of cities. I really think there is something to the idea but it just needs fixing somehow. I wish I could think of something that would work well. UB65 (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- PS, about a new stub idea, or even here there could be a comparison photo of say NYC in the beginning, during the 19th century, in the 20th century and 21st, showing how cities are transformed. (Maybe use NYC because I believe the images needed can be found free in the Public domain easier and it has been around so long with skyscrapers and people around the world usually recognize it because of mass media, ...just a suggestion...). UB65 (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Those ideas are great. However, I hope it does not lead into more POV. If you convert to texts, make sure you cite them with the appropriate sources... And well, the skyline article has been created for a reason, to house all these in. Your ideas about the skyline evolution will work well on the skylines article. The Skyscraper article mainly talks about the evolution of a skyscraper. I doubt your idea might work well on Skyscraper, but seems to work well with Skylines. Someone tagged skyline as a gallery page more than an encyclopedic topic itself. Maybe your ideas might work well there! :)
-
-
-
- For me, I still feel that the entire section should be scrapped, as I noticed it's nothing more than a POV edited by all the IP addresses. I have written articles like Chrysler Building and such (Which received a GA status), I feel your great leap of ideas will come under skylines instead on this article.
-
-
-
- Good to have you on this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Someformofhuman (talk • contribs) 08:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
So? What will it be? If nothing is done within the next 24 hours, I assume that the situation is solved and I will remove the entire section completely as there is already an article pertaining the World's Skyline, and it isn't worth mentioning twice and again. I feel that section has violated NPOV policy over the course of the article's history. I can't just sit and watch as some IP address adds another comment about the "10 best defined skylines of the World" and removes all the other images. These has got to have sources and should not be done on assumption or one's claim. I personally feel that the article has suffered enough of unverified and unscrupulous claims of original research and I don't want it to be further oscillated to an unintended quality downfall.
Some day, I will make this article a GA status. :)
Someformofhuman Speak now! 14:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the entire section and added new texts linked to skyline for a better use. It's time that I move this article up one step at a time.
- Someformofhuman Speak now! 00:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Construction
I came to this article looking for details of skyscraper construction, and the mention in passing in the history section could go into a bit more detail. Thanks. KTo288 00:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Maybe we should add more valuable encyclopedic texts into the article instead of pictures after pictures... If you're talking about skyscraper construction, maybe we should gather a few good sources from books and cite em' all here, so at least we get it all prepared.
SomeFormOFhuman
[edit] the worlds first skyscraper
right here's something nice for you. we have the victoria tower in london on the british parliament. it has twelve regular floors of libraries and research areas located above the ceremonial entrance although externally it does not appear to. it is set off a main service core. the structural support of the building comes from wrought iron beams, columns, trusses with stone cladding. it is 98.8 metres tall and was finished in 1858. it even has regular rectangular floorplates! this makes it the world's first skyscraper by ALL definitions used on this web page as it seems we are looking at metal framed buildings over 10 floors tall.
--Gothicform (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Chicago Skyscrapers
Why are there only two Chicago buildings in the listing? Why is that list missing so many skyscrapers in Chicago like Aon Center, John Hancock, and AT&T Corporate Center but so many are on the list from New York City? These buildings in Chicago are taller than most of those buildings in New York City. This needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk • contribs) 02:25, January 26, 2008
- You could make the change yourself, if you can back up your change with reliable sources. It might be worth it for you to create an account — alex.muller (talk • edits) 02:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I've done alot I can do improve the article with sources and cleaned up tons of unnecessary pictures at the right. I believe how a skyscraper all started is the utmost importance in its historical beginnings. Now things just displeases me... Seeing in its current state, I just simply stopped trying.
-
- Someformofhuman Speak now! 01:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:FreedomTower3.jpg
Image:FreedomTower3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A wild thought to check out if someone has time, since the Freedom tower design (along with the competitor designs from the contest) are public domain, would that include the renderings? (Many CGI completed pictures of the Freedom Tower right now are renderings based on the design). I am speaking about renderings such as the one used for the picture here in question, not paintings which would be copyrighted. UB65 (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Future Skyscrapers Section
I have cleaned this section up, adding several relevant towers and removing a reference to the proposed Transbay Tower as it is not globally significant. There are dozens of proposals much taller than this and it is not practical to list all of these.
I also reorganised these examples in order of height and separated 'under construction' and 'approved' skyscrapers.
Domentolen (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Good stuff!
Someformofhuman Speak now! 08:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] just a simple question... nothing with the article...
What's the use building tall buildings? There's a large area in earth undeveloped... izzudin 19:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi there. I'm sorry but these type of questions should be asked somewhere else instead. Maybe Yahoo Answers should help.
- Someformofhuman Speak now! 08:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
