Talk:Skyscraper/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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

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

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

Repeated Paragraph

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

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

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

Advantage steel

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

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

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

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

Trolling rampage (the Fazlur Khan guy again!)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incorrect link?

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

14 stories?

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge proposal → Hobbyist websites

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shibam

The article doesn't consider the city of Shibam, Yemen, built in the Middle Ages and one of the first places in the world to use vertical buildings in urban planning. Shibam, which is now a UNESCO World Heritage Site, owes its fame to its distinct architecture.The houses of Shibam are all made out of mud brick and about 500 of them are tower blocks, which rise 5 to 11 stories high,[2] with each floor having one or two rooms.[3] This architectural style was used in order to protect residents from Bedouin attacks. While Shibam has been in existence for an estimated 1,700 years, most of the city's houses originate from the 16th century. Many, though, have been rebuilt numerous times in the last few centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.55.45.5 (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Projected buildings removed

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

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

Abu Dubai tower

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

Nation's Landmarks

This article makes reference to 10-20 story buildings as being early skyscrapers. To note there is an extremely high building in Belmont Ohio, located in Dayton, and it measures only 11 floors. This is one such example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a000:dfc0:6:34b3:9637:3652:6f02 (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Impartial tone of the following paragraph?

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

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

Skyscraper

Do we consider a 30-40 underground floor and 15-20 above ground floor as a Skyscraper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alnowaeam (talk • contribs) 20:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It is commonly referred to as a high-rise building that has over 40 above ground floors and is taller than 150 m. However, buildings with a height of more than 100 meters are also sometimes referred to as skyscrapers.123 This is how it was written earlier in the article, and I propose to return it this way. Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

150 metres is used by Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat which is more of a reliable source than Emporis (the source you've provided); the latter is user-generated (like Wikipedia is) as opposed to CTBUH. Additionally, secondary independent reliable sources support 150m within the article -- books on architecture which are more of an authority on the subject as opposed to The Age, for example. Furthermore, the 150 metre defintion has been used / 100 metre has not been used in this article since March 2018; hence, WP:EDITCONSENSUS has long applied. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Emporis is a global provider of building information, it helps to gather information (including definitions of building-related terms), it is cited by the most prestigious servers, like: The Guardian, CNN, Reuters, Yahoo Finance, Bild.de, The Urban Developer and many others. You also did not explain why the other two should be unreliable. In addition, I do not dispute 150 m, I only remind reallity, that above 100 m buildings are also sometimes referred to as skyscrapers. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

As is CTBUH, the only difference being it is not user-generated. I understand what you're saying, but once upon a time buildings above a certain floor height (as explained within the article) were considered "skyscrapers", and they were not only below 150 metres --- but lower than 100 metres. What you're suggesting is further definitions; that will only confuse the reader. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with MelbourneStar. Adding more definitions is confusing. 150m is used by CTBUH and the further 'Supertall' at 300m and above and 'Megatall' 600m and above seem logical being double the previous category. Emporis is used widely (including on Wikipedia) but it reliability as a source versus CTBUH is clearly less because it allows user generated information WP:UGC. Unless there are compelling reasons supported by unequivocal reliable sources then the categories should remain as is - 150m etc. Robynthehode (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The page with definition of skyscraper is not user generated. The source is respected and widely used. And you still haven't explained why the other two sources are not relevant. If not for the introduction (could be confusing), it would be at least appropriate to incorporate it further into the article. Jirka.h23 (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

So if no one is still against, I'll return it back to the paragraph Definition, where it was before March 2018. Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Jirka.h23 Having had the time to check your sources here are my comments. Re The Age article - this is an opinion piece by a non-expert reporter. In addition the only source she uses is a link to the skyscraper page of CTBUH. So this article can't be used as a reliable source to support the Emporis definition. Re Reseachgate - this is a single report using the 100m definition for one country over a specific period. While a useful source for data pertaining to that time period and country its publication alone does not justify extrapolating the 100m figure to a standard for the defintion of 'skyscraper'. Re Emporis editorial definition - this is, as they admit, a mean metric between other definitions (although they do not list these other height definitions). Having thought about this it may, if other editors such as MelbourneStar agree, be worthwhile adding a note link in the lede so that readers can be referred to text on the variations in height definition (specifically Emporis but others if the sources are reliable). This should cover your objection that Emporis has an editorial oversight for this aspect of its site but retain a clear definition for a 'skyscraper' based on the most reliable source CTBUH. Comments? Robynthehode (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Until Robynthehode pinged me today, this is the first I've seen your response, Jirka.h23, considering it came a couple days after my response -- so apologies for not responding sooner. With what Robynthehode has just said, I tend to agree with their thorough analysis; further, I think they've offered a reasonable way forward. I will clarify that I support the following: prominence to the 150 metre definition in the lead, with a note link explaining other definitions (100 metres). Giving 100 metres any more prominence is undue, given how little coverage 100 metres has in reliable sources as you have inadvertently demonstrated through the use of those sources provided. So, as opposed to no mentions of 100 metres, I'm open to notes. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Jirka.h23 and MelbourneStar. As MelbourneStar was in agreement I have boldly edited and added a note re the 100m definition from Emporis. Let me know this is acceptable and if so we can lay this discussion to rest. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robynthehode: great work! I have no objections. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

A lax definition is better than a strict definition

The current lede sentence provides the following definition of a skyscraper:

"A skyscraper is a continuously habitable high-rise building that has over 40 floors[1] and is taller than 150 m (492 ft).[2][3][4][5] [nb]"

Shall we not consider a 149 m (489 ft) building a skyscraper? This definition does does not reflect common usage, which, like the words big, old, tall and strong, do not have strict definitions. The encyclopedia britannica source provides a laxer definition:

"Skyscraper: very tall, multistoried building. The term originally applied to buildings of 10 to 20 stories, but by the late 20th century the term was used to describe high-rise buildings of unusual height, generally greater than 40 or 50 stories."

So I propose the following lede:

" A skyscraper is a continuously habitable high-rise building of unusual height, generally taller than 30-40 floors or 100-150 meters."

How would you feel if you read for Old age:

"An old person is someone over 65 years of age, according to the US census Bureau.[1][2][3][4]"

Certainly it's a rigid, inhumane take.

--TZubiri (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose — No, we shall not, because that's not what WP:RS in the form of the most reliable authority on the subject -- CTBUH -- defines as a skyscraper. Britannica can have their own definition, but they're not an authority on skyscrapers. The definition you've proposed is already used for the definition of high-rise. Also, this subject is about buildings, not people (although, interestingly, we have a set definition on who can be classified a centenarian - not just any old person, like a 99 year old). @Jirka.h23: was the compromise @Robynthehode: offered over a month ago not good enough? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

With a note it is better than it was before. But you still haven't convinced me, why it can't be used in the text. Banning relevant and high-quality sources (pages not user-generated) seems quite non-standard to me. I also agree with the proposal of user TZubiri. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

150m is the status-quo revision, and the thing about consensus is that the onus is actually on you to convince me why we need a change from the status-quo (since you're advocating it). I remain unconvinced that opening an article with a barrage of definitions is appropriate. Perhaps 100m can be discussed in the definitions section, but really, we should stick to one definition in the lead - 150m considering that's what the authority source defines a skyscraper as such. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as per MelbourneStar. We follow reliable sources. If sources conflict we follow the expert sources not generalist ones. Jirka.h23 I think your support here is disingenuous. MelbourneStar and myself had a long discussion with you about this issue and a detailed response to your arguments was given. A compromise was offered (no response from you) and then boldly added (the nb at the end of the first sentence). Again no objection by you despite being pinged. You will need to offer a far better argument than 'per norm' (and not rehash your old arguments) to challenge the current consensus. Robynthehode (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - The specialized source in this case is a building database, it might be a very reliable source on individual buildings, since they collect information about them, but due to their systematic and strict nature, they make rigorous definitions of categories like skyscrapers that do not reflect common usage. To follow the "old age" analogy, if a database of people provided an age datum, and based on that it categorized people as young and old. It could still be a reliable source on specific people, but it would be ridiculous to cite it as a reliable source on the definition of old people.

I'll also note that there are 3 'conflicting' sources here, emporis, CTBUH, and britannica, two specialized and one generalist. I couldn't corroborate what the 4th source "The visual encyclopedia of architecture" says, but I'm willing to bet that it doesn't concurr with a strict definition, let alone coincide with CTBUH's. The logical course of action is not to play arbiter of truth between these 4 sources, but to reflect this lack of consensus between sources by conceding that there is no strict definition.

I again appeal to the good taste of editors. There are 82 other references in this article that do not try to define the word, are these sources using the word skyscraper to refer to some strict category of buildings based on height? Or are they using it in a manner better described by Encyclopedia Britannica's rough description? --TZubiri (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Definitions change, overtime. That would explain why today's low-rise buildings would have been considered skyscrapers centuries ago. Again, CTBUH is more reliable than Emporis, as the latter accepts user generated content, and Britannica is a generalist source (which I wouldn't expect that they'd have the correct specific definition anyway). I refer you to my comment above (and the responses to it). —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I also don't think that we should play arbiter of truth between these reliable sources. Read Wikipedia:Conflicting sources; "we cannot determine which one it is", "Do not remove the conflicting sources just because they contradict the current sources", "Do not choose which one is true and discard the others as incorrect" and "In the case of a conflict stemming from the fact that the general or academic consensus about the subject has changed, the current consensus should be given preference". If the definition changed, then you should also insert general or academic consensus about the subject, however older sources still should be used to show the historical development of the subject. Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Jirka.h23 Thanks for this but the linked article is an essay by a Wikipedia editor and not Wikipedia policy - as it says in the box at the top of the article: 'This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.' So although we may debate the opinion of the author of this opinion piece it cannot be used as a reference for Wikipedia policy. Robynthehode (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The vast majority of pages have this format. It is advisable to follow the text in the help pages, because it explains the standards with which most wikipedists agree. You could suggest a change of the help page, but I don't think it has a good chance of approval. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robynthehode: It is duly noted that the cited article is not a policy but an essay, in any case as per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules the difference lies not in their official status (of which no rule has) but on their approval by a certain vetting process, so you would be free to disagree with either. I'd like to call to notice to the claim that "if sources conflict we follow the expert sources not generalist ones" has not yet been sourced to a policy or essay, a link to one would be welcome.

A more interesting topic than Wikipedia bureaucracy is, do you disagree with the views espoused by the essay or their applicability to this case? It seems sensible to me, but I'm afraid it would be a dead end, as I find that it's hard to include both viewpoints without giving undue weight to the conflict, as the essay notes:

"If the issue is a simple matter of fact (e.g., a birth date) but cannot be resolved, this can be reported by presenting the apparently most plausible choice in the text while adding a footnote with the alternatives.

If the conflicting fact is of marginal encyclopedic interest, reporting on several views may lead to giving it undue prominence. A reasonable approach in that case would be to omit it entirely." So the conflict would remain about what point of view to relegate to a footnote, or omit entirely.

What I think might be helpful, since we are on the topic of guidelines, is WP:COMMONNAME. It suggests that, when there are conflicting definitions of an article title, the generalist definition should be used, not the expert definition. Suppose we have a dictionary entry that states that the general population may use skyscraper to refer to a building so high that it scrapes the sky, and a paper from a an architectural journal, that methodologically defines skyscrapers to be buildings between 50m and 100m, in this hypothetical scenario, according to the guideline, we should use the common definition, not the general one. --TZubiri (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Not only would I argue that CTBUH/150m+ is the expert definition, but rather it is the common usage definition as well; 100m+ is undue, given its prevalence in less reliable sources such as Emporis. I believe the compromise reached over a month ago, having 150 metres in the lead -- and footnoting other definitions was more than appropriate. Also, in response to Jirka.h23: consensus trumps guidelines, every day of the week. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Consensus with two people? I do not call this consensus. Look, the article in such a state will be very unstable, once in a while will someone come here and will want to insert these relevant sources. Unless you deliver general or academic consensus about the subject that has changed, I recommend to insert this, at least in another sentence, or further into the text. But anyway, older sources still should be used to show the historical development of the subject. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm actually referring to the year and a half-long edit consensus which still exists today. You and Tzubiri are challenging that, seeking to form new consensus — yet, as you've just pointed out, "with two people? I do not call this consensus". Nor do I. And again, please stop engaging in reverse-onus; the onus is on you to make your case for change, bring others with you... not steam-roll ahead with changes because you don't like my responses. This isn't the Wild West.

To clarify further: I have no issue with the article explaining how the definition has evolved over time. Of course that makes sense, and indeed, it does that already. It can do that with the 100m+ claim as well. But the 150m definition should remain in the lead, with prominence, per CTBUH. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, that 150m definition should remain in the lead with prominence. Also, if you have no issue with the article explaining how the definition has evolved, then you must first deliver general or academic consensus about the subject that has changed (if it does really changed as you claim). In the meantime, I must insist on inserting at least some similar sentences into lead: "Some other definitions worldwide, including Emporis Standards Committee, defines a skyscraper as a multi-story building whose height is at least 100 meters." The sentence could stay second after the 150m definition, which then remain in a privileged position in the article. Another option would be proposal of user TZubiri - a lax definition, and a detailed specifications could be further in the article. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Jirka.h23 I strongly oppose adding your suggestion re the Emporis definition. Your suggestion would mean that the sentence with the CTBUH definition would then have to be rewritten to explicitly mention CTBUH to make each sentence of equal weight in its phrasing. This would be clunky. More importantly it would also raise the status of the Emporis definition to an equal status of the CTBUH one (something I argue against below). A better suggestion is to have something added after the third sentence so that it reads: (The meaning shifted with advancing construction technology during the 20th century) and the definition of a skyscraper changed over time resulting in different minimum height and number of floors being used. Sources can follow this sentence re the changes if need be (but better in the article). Not perfect but I think it is better. Then in the 'definition' section a new first paragraph can clearly state the changes over time with prominence to the competing current definitions. The current 'definition' section is a bit messy and needs clarifying anyway.

I also strongly oppose a 'lax definition'. No good argument has been made for that suggestion as to how that improved the lede. A specific definition followed by a discussion of the changes in meaning in the article is far clearer.

Re 'common usage' - there is no policy page 'WP:COMMONUSAGE' but the article page TZubiri quotes from WP:AT is not relevant here. The policy is for article titles and we are not talking about changing the article title. You can't use the policy and purpose of that article - what the name of an article should be - to support an argument for a specific aspect of the definition of the article name itself. The disagreement we are engaged in is of the height value attributed to skyscrapers not that skyscrapers should be called 150m or 100m Tall Buildings as a title of the article.

Re the contention that there is not support for the use of expert over generalist sources. I can't find a specific use of this phrase but reading WP:RS it is clear we should follow secondary sources (over primary and tertiary ones) and ones that are as reliable as possible e.g. academic peer reviewed journals. So this is the 'expert' part of the argument and the reason why CTBUH is the expert source is argued below. My understanding would be that for the three sources that have been mentioned above - CTBUH, Emporis and Brittanica - the first two are secondary ones and the third is a tertiary source. Without completely discounting Britannica (which only mentions floor number anyway) the evaluation is between CTBUH and Emporis. Both have editorial oversight (accepting the direct contact another editor had with Emporis stated elsewhere) but Emporis has allowed or not been clear about the use of user generated content WP:UGC and their editorial oversight until recently. CTBUH has a reputation for fact checking, is a longer established organisation, is quoted by a wide variety of sources and publishes research papers and other content about the subject. On balance I would argue that CTBUH (at the moment) is the most reliable source. This is why myself and, I think, MelbourneStar support the use of its definition. We don't want to discard the Emporis one but want to make it less prominent (which would seem to accord with WP:UNDUE). We are not being arbiters of truth by choosing a better source for the definition in the lede but just making a decision about which height value comes from the most reliable source and placing other source's height values in a less prominent position. So how about my suggestion above as a compromise? The note reference (to the Emporis definition) can remain in the lede (some readers don't read past the lede anyway) but the Emporis defintion only appears in the article text in the discussion of the changing definition in the first paragraph for the first section of the article proper?

Furthermore I agree with MelbourneStar re the consensus. There is an established consensus and it is up to both of you to achieve a new consensus by getting support for your suggestions. At the moment it's two editors supporting consensus and two wanting a change. In situations like this it is up to those wanting the change to achieve an alternative consensus otherwise the status quo prevails. Robynthehode (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

So you oppose only to explicitly mention Emporis? In that case, it's easy, I have never insisted on explicitly mentioning it, we could use first sentence: "A skyscraper is a continuously habitable high-rise building that has over 40 floors and is taller than 150 m (492 ft)." and then there could be something like: "Some other definitions defines a skyscraper as a multi-story building whose height is at least 100 meters. The definition of a skyscraper changed over time." Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Jirka.h23 No you've either misunderstood what I have said or I haven't been clear enough. There is no mention in the lead of 100m height (just the 150m) except as part of a note as it currently is. The first mention of it fully in the text is in the 'Definition' section with my suggestion of a new initial paragraph there that mentions the varying height definitions with citations. Robynthehode (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

So? Maybe I misunderstood it, or it looks like you do not answer my post at all. This whole paragraph is about the lead. I will look at it tomorrow. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I have not been clear. When I said 'There is no mention in the lede of 100m height etc I meant there is to be no mention in the lede of the 100m height (missed out the 'to be'). Does that make more sense. I don't want mention of the 100m height in the lede at all only in the new first paragraph I have suggested in the 'Definition' section. Robynthehode (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, now I get it. I agree with you, to mention the 100m in the first paragraph. However, the controversy still persists over whether to mention this explicitly in the introduction, or just in the note reference. The core of the problem is still that I don't see such a big difference between the CTBUH and some other sources. Whether it should have such a prominent place compared to other sources. I did not say that it should not have a privileged position and I suggested it as the main one in the first sentence. Dispute is about how to place other sources in a less prominent position in the lead. In that case, a vote could be a good solution. Another option with which I would agree is opinion of TZubiri, that we should in the lead use the common definition, not the general one. Jirka.h23 (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Jirka.h23 Thanks for continuing the discussion. Too early to archive. I agree with you that the dispute is two fold: the reliability of certain sources and whether to explicitly include the height values in the lede with the relevant sources. Firstly the dispute, as far as I can see, is not between sources but between two sources: namely CTBUH and Emporis. Secondly I have already offered three compromise suggestions (one of which has been implemented namely the nb for the Emporis 100m height value). You seem to be agreeing to at least two of these compromises but still want your (and TZubiri) initial goal of including the 100m height value explicitly stated in the lede. This is what I and MelbourneStar object to for reasons already stated. Consensus is about discussion and if required compromise, with suggestions for article improvement. It is not about voting. Please read WP:CONSENSUS (second sentence of the first paragraph). Finally TZubiri's 'common' definition versus expert one (which is what I presume you meant rather than 'general' as that's the same as common in this situation). I and MelbourneStar have already offered substantial views on this above. You would need to counter our arguments before moving on. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Another approach.

I quote the full source in question: " A skyscraper is defined on Emporis as a multi-story building whose architectural height is at least 100 meters. This definition falls midway between many common definitions worldwide, and is intended as a metric compromise which can be applied across the board worldwide. The 100-meter cutoff for a skyscraper coincides with the cutoff for the Emporis Skyscraper Award."

" A skyscraper is defined on Emporis" in other words, " For the purposes of the Emporis database" , not even emporis claims that this is the official definition of a skyscraper. Furthermore they recognize that there are multiple definitions "falls midway between many common definitions worldwide". --TZubiri (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

If this is for the definition section, then that seems reasonable to include. For the lead? absolutely not. There's two issues: Emporis isn't exactly a reliable source, so I'd be hesitant to rely them; secondly, we already have a reliable source, CTBUH, which gives a specific definition of 150m. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I got them mixed up. Because I only found a reference for Emporis, I assumed that was the one you were basing the definition on. I see now that the heights are different, 100m vs 150m.

I couldn't find a reference by CBTUH, I only found a reference by theurbandeveloper.com that informally cites CBTUH (the hyperlink points to wikipedia). Could you please provide a direct source from CBTUH so that we can assess the context with which they define skyscraper and the reliability of the source? As it stands, there are 6 references in the lead sentence, and supposedly none is from THE most reliable source.--TZubiri (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

That's right, all the CTBUH is talking about are a "Tall Buildings" (14 or more stories, or more than 50 meters), a "Supertall" (300 m) and a "Megatall" (600 m).2 In this case, we should only use the Emporis page here, as the next most relevant secondary source. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Jirka, this is not the reference I was referring to please take a look at ref 3 : " Which world has the most skyscrapers" reads "The majority of international organisations, such as the CTBUH and Emporis, define a skyscraper as a building that reaches or exceeds the height of 150 metres."

Ctbuh is not cited directly for the strict definition claim. we are citing urbandeveloper which in turn cites cbtuh I believe this is what is being referred to by the CTBUH definition. I reiterate for clarity, my request for robyn and melbourme is to cut the middleman and cite ctbuh directly.

p.s: I now see the value in indenting. --TZubiri (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I know that you you mean source Urbandeveloper, it can be wrong with 150 metres on CTBUH, same as it was wrong with the Emporis. The main thing is, that the CTBUH does not state any such information. Thanks for the warning, i didn't even look at it and just trusted these two users (it could have changed too). Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Jirka.h23 & TZubiri. Thanks for double checking the CTBUH source. Yes, it looks with the new look CTBUH website, they have altered the criteria for minimum height definition - 50m. I and other editors can assure you it used to say 150m. Unfortunately this doesn't finalise the decision about the height criteria for two reasons: One - CTBUH uses the term 'tall building/s' whereas Emporis (at least in their definition page) use 'skyscraper'. We should first agree that 'tall building' and 'skyscraper' mean the same thing (or not - although the consequences for Wikipedia articles, if not, will be extensive). An additional point related to this is that (as far as I can see) CTBUH is the only source to use the subset criteria of 'supertall' and 'megatall' and these are related to tall buildings not skyscrapers (this would, of course, be moot if we agree skyscrapers and tall buildings are equivalent terms) Two - CTBUH is still the most reliable source so their height criteria is, based on this, the most reliable. Although I will admit using 50m as a definition for skyscrapers (tall buildings) is problematic. This poses more questions but let's wait for MelbourneStar to comment (and other editors) - in fact it may be worth starting an Rfc or posting this on one of the noticeboards because the final decision we reach by consensus here has implictions for lots of articles. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting development. On one hand, whilst it appears there's been a definitions change, and they've removed 150 metres from their definitions or it's still there (for example every single city and country profile on CTBUH's Skyscraper Center database, eg. Australia and Melbourne). Secondly, reliable sources have interpreted CTBUH's definition as 150 metres (The Urban Developer being one), as I have, and considering the latter two links - still do. Notwithstanding CTBUH's definition or perhaps lack thereof, depending how you see it, I've found a number of RS to support 150 metres:

• B1M (web) "Finally “skyscrapers” must rise to a minimum height of 150 metres (492 feet)." and "150m is widely accepted as the height at which a building is to be considered a skyscraper."
• International Journal of Recent Engineering Research and Development (journal) "And finally, the buildings more than 150 meters call skyscraper."
• "Is the Chinese skyscraper boom excessive?" (journal) "In the U.S. and Europe, the term skyscraper often refers to a habitable building taller than 150 meters. Some also use this term to include buildings taller than 100 meters."

I think this will have to be an WP:RFC job, considering it's going to get a bit complicated. If 150 metres is not' the definition we recognise, what happens to every single List of tallest buildings in X-city-country-place? what happens to List of cities with the most skyscrapers? We won't be able to use CTBUH, not Emporis or any other database, considering none are reliable for buildings under 150 metres (not even CTBUH per their own admission on their website -- there's simply too many buildings under 150 metres)? That's very concerning for someone who edits those particular lists, but if it needs to be done... —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

As said user Robynthehode (and I agree with that) CTBUH and Emporis are two secondary sources and others are a tertiary sources. The term "Tall building" is absolutely not synonymous with the term "skyscraper". Tertiary sources like the Urbandeveloper, can be wrong with 150 metres on CTBUH, same as it was wrong with the Emporis. Therefore I recommend to change the introduction to: "A skyscraper is a continuously habitable high-rise building that has over 40 floors and is taller than 100 m." Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

CTBUH also sometimes refers to Emporis.3 (The Emporis defines a "skyscraper" as a "multi-storey" building whose architectural height is at least 100 meters".) Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

As I’ve just said, I disagree with that - and believe it should be taken to an RfC. You’ve provided the same type of sources that you claim can be wrong, and by virtue of that claim, your sources can be wrong too. Interestingly, you’ve not responded to the actual Wikipedia concerns there’ll be to changing the definition — but you don’t end those articles mentioned, so I can see why that’s not a concern for you. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I did not provided the same type of sources that can be wrong, as we agreed on Emporis. You’ve not responded to it, it means you diagree? And what about a compromise: "..whose architectural height is at least 100-150 meters" (with all relevant sources). The definition really isn't that strict. The various list of tallest buildings still can use 150 m. Jirka.h23 (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I meant, I disagree that CTBUH have defined skyscrapers as buildings above 50 metres, and that the "Tall buildings" in every city/country profile of their Skyscraper Center database are just "tall buildings" and not skyscrapers. More to the point, it still baffles me that every city/country profile on CTBUH observes the number of buildings above 150m -- why not 100m? why not 50m? to me, 150 metres seems pretty specific.

However, all things considered, the furthest I would compromise would be two split definitions (not one amalgamated as you've put it). So something like, "whose architectural height is at least 150 metres ("according to" or relevant sources) or 100 metres ("according to" or relevant sources)". Perhaps, even, that latter sentence inversed. That, for the lead. And then of course we elaborate in the definitions section.

With the other lists, I don't think its as easy as you're making it out to be. However, if the other lists can say something to the effect of: "this list follows X(150m) definition" -- that to me makes more sense.

I still believe an RfC is appropriate. I think we need to gain solid consensus for whichever path is chosen. I think either way, consensus will be different to the statusquo consensus that currently exists. An RfC will legitimise this change. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Having checked sources and Wikipedia policy again there are few things to mention. Firstly: Although Emporis and CTBUH are mainly secondary sources they are primary sources for their building definitional claims. We have to, therefore, be additionally careful with these sources as per WP:PRIMARY. Secondly: In this discussion and use of sources there has been combinations of source information which is contrary to WP:SYNTH. An example is using the Britannica source (which only states a floor height value) in the same sentence as a building height value in metres used by other sources. So we can't use, for example, 'a skyscraper is...building of 40 floors that is 100m high' unless this is specifically stated in a specific sentence in a single reliable source. Thirdly: I agree 'tall buildings' and 'skyscrapers' are not the same, but 'skyscrapers' are a subset of 'tall buildings' with the addition of a height criteria that is different to the more detailed definition of a tall building CTBUH gives. Fourthly: Jirka.h23 You may have just made a mistake but you cannot simply use sources (the ones in your recent proposal definitional sentence and that are now listed in a reflist below) that have been challenged above without justifying why they should remain. I gave reasons above why 'The Age', 'Research Gate' and 'Britannica' are not suitable or reliable sources. So as far as I'm concerned the only source that is usable is the Emporis one. Fifthly: I think MelbourneStar has suggested a reasonable compromise to the current dilemma - namely ' "whose architectural height is at least 150 metres ("according to" or relevant sources) or 100 metres ("according to" or relevant sources)". Perhaps, even, that latter sentence inversed.' They have provided additional sources for the 150m value which seem okay. But I do agree with them that this requires an Rfc as the final decision has significant consequences for lots of articles. Other editors' views would, perhaps, offer a fresh perspective and allow this long discussion to conclude with a new well supported consensus. Robynthehode (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with both compromise and a possible referendum. Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It appears that there's 4 people interested in improving this article, willing to dedicate some time to it. I started an effort to improve the article on non controversial issues, details below. I believe this will be a better use of our time. We can circle back to this topic once we get our hands dirty. This should improve both our edits to talk ratio, and the lede to body ratio of our efforts.--TZubiri (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Request for Comment for the defintion of 'Skyscraper'

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was that there appears to be a consensus in support of the proposal to include two different heights from the main sources and a version of the lead was found that everyone agrees with. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

---

There is a disagreement regarding the defintion of the term 'Skyscraper'; specifically the height value (and to a lesser degree the floor count value) attributed to this term. The extensive discussion has lead to a suggested definition (but no consensus has been reached on this) for the lede but the involved editors would like other editors to comment before a consensus is reached and the article lede is finalised. Robynthehode (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Summary of discussion

The main contention is whether to include a single height (and possibly floor count) value for the definition of skyscrapers in the lede or to include two different heights from the main sources. Numerous sources have been suggested but the two main ones are Emporis - gives 100m and Council on Tall Building and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) - gives 150m (although this is open to debate). Both sources are reliable but CTBUH, it is contended, is the most reliable. If you are an RfC editor commenting and would like clarification please ask otherwise please read some or all of the discussion above. Robynthehode (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not our purpose to define a term, but to report upon how other (reliable) sources have defined it. Clearly the definition used by sources has changed over the years - usually in a positive direction; it is likely that it will increase again at some point. If a source uses the term "skyscarper" when describing a particular building, then we may do so as well. If they don't, we shouldn't. Consider the Home Insurance Building: this was described as a skyscraper at the time, but if it still existed, it would fall far short of modern usages of the term. That should not mean that we must stop calling it a skyscraper. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. All the editors contributing so far understand about reliable sources. The dispute is one between definitions from varied sources and the height values they ascribe to the buildings. If you have not do so, please read the discussion before commenting again so you can understand further. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

What, all 32,000+ characters (excluding sigs and refs)? Talk about WP:TLDR. A RfC statement, upon which we are expected to be commenting, is supposed to be neutral and brief. How about a summary of the points raised? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64 Yes sorry I meant to write a summary but didn't get round to it and didn't know if I would. There is one, above, now. Thanks again for your contribution. If you want further clarification of the discussion let me know. Robynthehode (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Propose Restoring Previous Lede' The lede was changed without apparent comment in 2017 and we need to revert it to the old lede or a reasonable copy thereof here: [2]. You'll notice in the current article that the first source is the Britannica, which does not use the same definition as the new lede, but instead notes the term is used for taller buildings now than originally used. There are additional references which say skyscrapers start at 100m or 150m. I'm surprised by these definitions myself as they conflict, they don't match dictionary definitions or etymology. I was once taught an eight-storey building was a "skyscraper" as it was by far the tallest building in the general area, so it's also subjective. We should avoid being definitive, note the term is subjective, as is noted by this Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat article: [3], and note that certain organisations have defined the term in a 21st century context. SportingFlyer T·C 22:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment' - User:Redrose64 could you please specify your opinion on the form of the introduction? As it seems, there are still three of us who agreed on the form: "..whose architectural height is at least 100 metres or 150 metres". User TZubiri and (I think) user SportingFlyer support a lax definition (page from 2017 also included only 100m). Other users, please also express your opinion. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - To answer SportingFlyer: Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NAD. Britannica has already been questioned as a source so unless there is an argument to use it, it is irrelevant. Your source of the CTBUH does not say the definition is 'subjective', as far as I can see, but that it has changed over time. So it may be said to be subjective in one sense but not in the sense that reliable sources define it. Reliable sources are precise in how they define the minimum height. So no to a lax definition, but instead a definition that reflects the variation in reliable sources (namely Emporis and CTBUH). Robynthehode (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• What's ironic and incorrect about your response is that you are actually trying to define the term "skyscraper." People have attempted to define the term specifically for a long time, and the fact two building databases have defined the term (albeit differently) does not mean that this is the empirical definition of the term. See this article from 1959, which discusses the difficulty of defining the word "skyscraper." You are assuming that I am seeking to use Wikipedia as a dictionary, but rather I am merely pointing out we should not specifically define a term based on only two very recent sources. For instance, this obituary of Martin Stern Jr. shows the Sahara to be the "first skyscraper on the strip." What we should do here is note that modern building databases define the skyscraper as a building of over 100 metres or over 150 metres in height as building heights have increased, but that the actual definition is a relative one, similar to what it was in 2017 before the unilateral change. SportingFlyer T·C 10:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• A sample of some recent literature review: This 2020 article cites a book (RS) with a different definition of skyscraper from 1999. This 2020 article uses the Curl & Wilson definition of skyscraper is defined as any multi-story building supported by a steel or concrete frame instead of traditional load-bearing walls and describes the CTBUH as defining buildings as "tall," "super-tall," and "mega-tall" instead of "skyscrapers." This 2020 thesis uses the Emporis definition, but notes there is "no universally accepted definition for skyscraper." We should not be seeking to specifically define this term, either. SportingFlyer T·C 10:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

SportingFlyer My response is neither ironic nor incorrect. If you read my part in this long discussion (prior to the RfC) you will see that all I want to do is report what current reliable sources define a skyscraper to be. I have not and do not deny that there is a long history in the defining of skyscrapers nor do I think that there is an ultimate definition that cannot be challenged. However, for the purposes of an encyclopaedic article and specifically its lede it is useful for a lay reader to have a definition that is as reliable and as current as possible. Later in the article the history of how skyscrapers have been defined can be stated (another thing I have suggested). Robynthehode (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robynthehode: And I am simply showing that reliable sources disagree on whether a specific definition of a skyscraper exists. I am fine with mentioning what the reliable sources say in the lede. I am not fine with picking a specific definition over others, as it is clear a specific definition does not exist. I would propose something like the old 2017 version, or something like: A skyscraper is a tall building containing multiple floors. In a modern context, a skyscraper is typically defined as a building at least 100 metres or 40 stories in height, though the word has no formal definition in terms of height requirements. I just want to make sure the opening sentence has a subjective definition, as this is factually correct. SportingFlyer T·C 12:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

SportingFlyer Thanks for reiterating that reliable sources disagree but this has been gone over in our discussion above. The consensus among the editors in the discussion is that CTBUH and Emporis are the most reliable. They differ in their height values - 150m and 100m respectively (with a caveat). It is good you have offered a suggestion but it eliminates the 150m. Also although there may be a source that says it - including the floor number value and the height value in the same sentence may contravene WP:SYNTH. You also contradict yourself by saying 'it is clear a specific definition does not exist' and then you offer one 'at least 100 metres or 40 stories'. It has already been suggested that a caveat follow on sentence after any modern definition in the opening sentence can reflect the changing nature of how skyscrapers have been defined. And then more detail can be shown in the first paragraph of the first section of the article proper. I urge you to read more of the discussion that has already happened prior to the RfC so we do not go over the same points again. Robynthehode (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robynthehode: There's no such thing as "most reliable" - there are multiple sources which all offer their own definition, and the definition is fluid. I'm fine with adding in the 150m as well to the proposed sentence, though the CTBUH seems to have changed on this front. It should also have been clear that my statement "a specific definition does not exist" was not referring to either the Emporis or the CTBUH definition, but rather that there is no authority for the definition of this term, and this is reflected by both recent and historical scholarly literature. In terms of the RfC, I am agreeing with the position that we need to use a common/general definition as opposed to an expert definition, as not only do "expert" definitions conflict, but the general definition is more accurate, and it should never have been changed in the first place. It's not a position presented by this RfC, but it is technically the correct outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 14:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

SportingFlyer To take your points in turn: 1. Yes there is a status of 'most reliable'. While on the face of it it could be said a source is reliable or it isn't, Wikipedia engages in assessing sources' reliability for the purposes of creating an encyclopaedia. One - secondary sources are preferred to primary and tertiary. Two - within secondary sources assessments are made about the specific reliability of parts of the source; you just have to look at the list of perennial sources to see that. Three - editors can come to a consensus that within a specific field certain sources are to be preferred to others. So taking all these points into account a 'most' reliable source can be determined. Of course this can be challenged but within the terms of this discussion it has been determined that CTBUH is the most reliable source for buildings / structures and is used widely across Wikipedia articles. 2. There are a limited number of sources that define 'skyscrapers'. Most rely on reference to CTBUH or Emporis or a small number of other sources (many other secondary sources merely use CTBUH and Emporis anyway). 3. The definition is not fluid but historically changeable which is a different thing. Yes the definition has changed over time - but we are in agreement about that. The current discussion is about what to put in the lede as a definition that is current and based on the (most) reliable sources. 4. Where does your common / general definition come from? What sources support that definition? The expert definition is the more accurate, even if the two main sources conflict because such a definition merely illustrates the continued debate (within the sources) about what a 'skyscraper' is. So including 100 m and 150 m as height criteria in the opening sentence would seem to fairly illustrate this and give any reader an opportunity to investigate further in the opening 'history' section of the article proper. Maybe we are agreeing in a roundabout way (as you are fine with adding the 150m value), maybe not but it would be good for other editors to comment. Robynthehode (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robynthehode: 1. While I generally agree with your description of Wikipedia picking sources over others, in this case, "most reliable" would be accepting one or both of these definitions as "correct" where reliable sources as a whole accept there is no actual specific definition (as opposed to the lax definition proposed by dictionaries.) 2. I disagree with this. There have been a number of attempts to define the term historically and there are a number of varied dictionary definitions, and reliable scholarly sources agree there's no specific definition. 3. I would argue the definition hasn't changed as much as the way certain sources interpret the word have changed. 4. I'm using general dictionary definitions and the sources I've pulled from above. WP:DICDEF states that the articles should begin with a "good definition" and I see no issue with using dictionaries for the general definition. In this case, I think a good definition starts out lax and then quotes the Emporis/CTBUH definitions (both 100m and 150m) instead of treating one or the other of those as canon. I also disagree they're "more accurate." They're more specific, they're not universally accepted, and they differ. Therefore, we need to be neutral, which requires a general description. (I'm not going to change my mind, either.) SportingFlyer T·C 17:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

SportingFlyer Thanks for your response but I think your view is contrary to WP:NAD and for lots of other reasons I disagree with your analysis as per comments above. There is no consensus to change the lede to what you have suggested so at the moment the status quo will apply WP:STATUSQUO so it doesn't matter that you won't change your mind. Let's leave this for other editors to comment to see if consensus can be reached. Robynthehode (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robynthehode: WP:NAD states: Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history. This article is about a concept or a thing which clearly doesn't have a formally accepted definition. WP:NAD does not prohibit the definition of a concept or thing. Also, there's at least a reasonable argument the lede should not have been changed at all back in late 2017 - it was certainly not discussed on the talk page, and I would have reverted had I been following the page then. Furthermore, we're at RfC - other users will be allowed their opinion as well. SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of WP:NAD and changes don't have to be discussed on a talk page. Bold editing is part of Wikipedia. Also it doesn't matter what any one us would have done but what we do now. And I am not, and have not tried to close down other editors opinions so I don't quite understand your last comment. But in the interest of moving this forward I have checked again the definition from 2017 which you have suggested. This definition is: A skyscraper is a tall, continuously habitable building having multiple floors. When the term was originally used in the 1880s it described a building of 10 to 20 floors but now describes one of at least 40 to 50 floors. Mostly designed for office, commercial and residential uses, a skyscraper can also be called a high-rise, but the term "skyscraper" is often used for buildings higher than 100 m (328 ft). For buildings above a height of 300 m (984 ft), the term "supertall" can be used, while skyscrapers reaching beyond 600 m (1,969 ft) are classified as "megatall". To take each sentence in turn:

• A skyscraper is a tall, continuously habitable building having multiple floors - no objection to this
• When the term was originally used in the 1880s it described a building of 10 to 20 floors but now describes one of at least 40 to 50 floors. - limited objection as reference is Britannica. Would be good to have a secondary source
• Mostly designed for office, commercial and residential uses, a skyscraper can also be called a high-rise, but the term "skyscraper" is often used for buildings higher than 100 m (328 ft). - Object to 100m classification for reasons already stated by myself and MelbourneStar. Also the source is not good -'The Age'. I have given a detailed critique of this above.
• For buildings above a height of 300 m (984 ft), the term "supertall" can be used, while skyscrapers reaching beyond 600 m (1,969 ft) are classified as "megatall". - No source, as far as I can see, states skyscrapers as being 'supertall' or 'megatall'. CTBUH doesn't use the term 'skyscraper. If there is a reliable source fine, if not then any inclusion is possibly contrary to WP:SYNTH. If we accept CTBUH as the source for these terms then don't we have to accept their classification of skyscrapers/tall buildings that start at the height of 50m? (the CTBUH lower end definition of a tall building)

Shall we try to work toward a 'definition' that other editors in this debate can agree with or not and move this to a conclusion. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Robynthehode, and wouldn't stray far from what they've said. Re "Also, there's at least a reasonable argument the lede should not have been changed at all back in late 2017 - it was certainly not discussed on the talk page, and I would have reverted had I been following the page then" SportingFlyer that's your opinion, everyone has one of those, and if I were editing the article at the time I would have exercised mine by supporting it. In the end, the lead was changed, remained unchallenged, and new consensus was formed. Quite an innocuous concept, indeed. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

To clarify my point re CTBUH not using the term 'skyscraper' They don't use it in the building definition section here [4] but do use it here [5] in their database of buildings. The latter link shows 150m value and the reason for not relying on just the 100m. Also all city and country specific pages only list the 150m value. This unclear terminological use by CTBUH is one of the reasons for the confusion and debate. Robynthehode (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we're we are still moving in circles. When user TZubiri asked two weeks ago for a source of policy or essay of Robynthehode's claim that "if sources conflict we follow the expert sources not generalist ones", he admitted that he can't find a specific use of this phrase. This is what i say from the beginning (and now also a fourth user SportingFlyer), it is very non-standard for me to eliminate relevant sources because someone say that some are most relevant. There was also no consensus on the changes in 2017. But to move forward, we agreed on the phrase: "..whose architectural height is at least 100 metres or 150 metres". SportingFlyer, from your October 13 17:58 post it seems that you could agree with this sentence, right? However, you require the first lax sentence and then in the next sentence mention of more specific description? Thanks for answer. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. My issue with the current lede is that it uses a specific definition in the first sentence. It appears from the recent post that Robynthehode wouldn't have a problem with changing this. I do not have an issue with including how various organisations currently define it in the overall opening part of the article. The opening sentence makes it appear as if that's the empirically correct definition, when the term does not have an empirically correct definition, as I've shown from the recent literature. "A skyscraper is a tall, continuously habitable building having multiple floors. Modern sources currently define skyscrapers as being at least 100 metres or 150 metres in height, though there is no universally accepted definition. Historically, the term first referred to buildings with between 10 or 20 stories when these types buildings began to be constructed in the 1880s." I don't mind if that's edited, or parts removed that we don't agree on, but that's what I'm thinking in terms of how it should be structured. SportingFlyer T·C 09:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with this. What do you say, Robynthehode, MelbourneStar and TZubiri ? Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks okay as long as the sources for 100m and 150m are okay. Do we want to add the 'supertall' and 'megatall' classifications or keep it simple? Robynthehode (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It does not matter to me if it is mentioned here or below in paragraphs. Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Summoned by bot  Comment. It often happens that terms can be used both strictly and loosely or are understood differently depending on whether employed in a colloquial or academic sense, theory is often given as a quintessential example of where this can cause confusion, though there are numerous other examples. This is further complicated in this instance by the fact that expert sources in the field differ, though again this is hardly a unique issue (e.g. astronomers and planetologists each use different definitions of planet). Geographical regions are another area where this can get messy quickly. The best we can do is try to explain and I think the current lead does a decent job of that, but I can understand the resistance to the current wording of the first sentence as being too proscriptive.

Sticking with the current convention for the moment and my mind is certainly open to other options and outside the box thinking, this is what I came up with on the fly.

In common usage, a skyscraper is a tall continuously habitable high-rise building. Historically, the term first referred to buildings with 10 to 20 floors in the 1880s. The meaning shifted with advancing construction technology during the 20th century, and in the 21st century is typically applied only to new buildings taller than 150 m (492 ft). Skyscrapers may host offices, hotels, residential spaces, and retail spaces.

It's hardly eloquent prose; there's probably a better way to get across the idea that while the structures from the 1880s are still classed as skyscrapers in academic sources, new structures of the same general size and shape are not. Anyway maybe a starting point for a placeholder until someone has time to come up with something better.

Two sources were added to support usage originating in the 1880s to address the concern above. Emporis is still in the note rather than the main text. This is largely because there were a series of discussions last year which more or less concluded that Emporis was marginally reliable; articles primarily sourced to Emporis were deleted (e.g. Articles for deletion/List of cities with the most high-rise buildings), however I don't believe there was more than a handful of people who assessed it as categorically unreliable, so placement in the note seems like a good compromise when considering BESTSOURCES.

Another option worth considering is deferring a precise definition until a later point in the article. Among others Information, line, and Galois theory have taken this route and benefit from it.

Perhaps something along the lines of the following would work:

Skyscraper first came into use during the 1880s to describe....

I haven't gone through all the sources yet (sorry I don't have much time on my hands atm and I have a few other Wikipedia tasks I said I would get to this week) I know there is a section below seeking to improve them, may be worth looking into some of the journals mentioned in the preceding section. Ideally all the information would be supported by academic references in the body which would obviate the need for their use in the lead (see LEADCITE).

I would oppose restoration of the older lead though primarily for other stylistic issues than the definition. The mention of usages works better where it is than where it was and it's not necessary to define either supertall or megatall in the first paragraph. In fact, megatall is still somewhat of a jargon term/neologism. While it should be mentioned in the body given it's occasional use by media sources, extensive use of it would breach the tone expected of an encyclopedia, and without extensive use in the body a mention in the lead can't be justified.

As a general comment the lead could do with some fleshing out because as a summary of the body it's currently lacking.

Jirka.h23, MelbourneStar☆, Robynthehode, SportingFlyer, TZubiri

pinging everyone because I kind of responded to all of you, if you think there's anything missing (it was a long discussion) or you have some other idea feel free to let me know thanks.

𝒬𝔔 21:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• I don't have any problem with any of this - the strength of my opinion is just not using a strict definition in the first sentence. We should start working towards a resolution, though, possibly an RfC with different proposed ledes? SportingFlyer T·C 22:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we want to jump into another RFC so soon, I think it would be better to create a section below where everyone can propose an intro paragraph, and then after everyone has weighed in if there is a clear preference we can use that without an RFC, and if not then we just create an RFC between the top 2 or 3 (anymore than that would certainly end up with no consensus).

𝒬𝔔 22:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes no reason to go into another RfC. Let's just have the proposed section with everyone proposing and intro paragraph (although this has been done to some extent already but not all in one place). From the previous discussion I think we are close to a broad agreement anyway. Robynthehode (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is endless. As Robynthehode said, we are close to a broad agreement already. Quantocius_Quantotius, could you briefly and clearly express what's your opinion on the SportingFlyer's proposal? Or what further possible changes would you require? Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Quantocius Quantotius:? Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23: thanks for your patience. I'm not an everyday editor, and I won't be around much in November. If you took the time to read my response above I did give my analysis of existing proposals and gave two proposals of my own. If your fine with either of those than we can move forward from there since SF stated in reply to them I don't have any problem with any of this, if not then submit your own proposal. It's also worth noting that the RFC has not yet expired and as close as the expiry is we should still still allow that new editors may see it and also want to join in. In addition, some of the other editors I pinged in my first comment have also yet to edit again and it would be polite to give them a little longer too, remember there is no deadline.

I see this going two ways; either after giving everyone reasonable time to weigh back in, say a week or so, an existing proposal is accepted, or we start a new section like we discussed above and go from there. Also if your only objection to one of my proposals is minor (i.e. something that could be fixed with a copyedit) feel free to make the tweak and even if I don't have time to get back here next week you can assume it has my support, hope this answers your question.

𝒬𝔔 16:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

It's been a week since your proposal. In fact, it's been more than two weeks. I see that you are a newbie here and you have been contributing only for about a year, and I see that you do not contribute here often, as you say. With all due respect, if you know for sure, that you won't get here next week either, I'd say it's better not to interfere in such a long discussion, unless you have some serious objections. According to your post, I assume, that you do not want to restore an older version, you would rather not mention supertall and megatall terms in the introduction and you do not have a serious problem with the SportingFlyer's proposal. This version probably looks the most feasible for the participants in the discussion. So far, I've added it to the introduction, and if there are any suggestions for change, do not hesitate to mention them here. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23: Thanks for your continued work on this (almost) neverending discussion. Your changes to the definition look like a good version so no objections from me. As you have said re Quantocius_Quantotius contributions we need to settle on an agreeable version (the one you have made) and see if there are any objections (maybe by the end of Nov) and then close this discussion as consensus having been achieved (unless significant objections are posted). Thanks again. Robynthehode (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23 and Robynthehode: The current version looks fine, maybe not exactly what I or any one of us would have written on our own, but seems like a good compromise between everyone's ideas, and better than anything I would've come up with on the fly. Could probably still benefit from some tweaks, but those should probably be done in concert with the rest of the lead as a whole and given that the most contentious parts of this have been ironed out should be doable in a series of bold edits.

On a related note, it's a real shame that WP:SKY's most important article isn't a GA. I'm hoping to have some extra time after the first of the year to help so maybe we can get a collaboration together, start finding good academic sources and someone who's good at writing english prose, and see if we can get it there (I mean you don't have to wait for me if there's already enough interest now, but I won't really be able to help much before then). It's a thought anyway.

One final point, per WP:RFC Neither "closing" nor "summarizing" are required. So if you want to put {{closed rfc top}}/{{closed rfc bottom}} around this just so other people know they don't need to read throught this wall of text that's fine but the RFC itself is no more or less official either way.

𝒬𝔔 20:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - the lede's probably not perfect, but it's much better. Agreed about the GA. SportingFlyer T·C 18:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

talkrefs
References

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

Project: References review.

For claims that are supported by sources, I began verifying that the claim as written in Wikipedia corresponds to the claim written by the authors. In doing so I am explicitly adding the relevant quote to the reference section. This is especially useful for offline sources like "The visual dictionary of architecture", but in general it serves as a good editing exercise. I will post my progress below as well as stipulate some rules if anyone wants to join. The goal is to cover all 87 sources.

The project started on October 5th, at that date, the latest revision was September 21st, (URL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skyscraper&diff=982021152&oldid=979525214) the September revision will be considered the base, any sources added after that date will not be reviewed. Some references might be duplicated, or their order might change in the review process, in this case, reference numbers will refer to those used at the base revision.

During the first stage, the objective is to explicitly add a quote for a claim supported by the reference. I will not edit the article text in any way to avoid disputes and to simplify the task into chunks. This means that a quote and the claim might be different, this will be solved in a later stage. I will also not be removing references no matter what problems it may have, this will also be solved at a later stage.

In this section I will make a table of the references, each row shall have a number which uniquely identifies it, a short name that I the editor will refer it by (this does not need to coincide between editors), and a description of the task that have been performed on the reference or the state of the reference, at this point there are three states: quote added, and claim verified, or no action. Claim verified means that the quote was added by somebody else, and we verify that it corresponds with the claim. Finally, I add a note at the end if there's some extra work that needs to be done at a later stage. Notes are separated with two backslashes //

Caption text

id	name	state	notes
1	Britannica	Quote Added
2	Dictionary of Architecture	Quote Added	Corresponds with 150m qualification, but calls it a general rule, and leaves it at the end of the definition.
3	urbandeveloper.com	Quote Added	Terribly written. Let's delete this. We are only using their quote that CTBUH and Emporis definition, let's cite that directly.
4	Skyscrapernews.com	Quote verified	Not a reliable source // Possible citogenesis, can't tell since they don't attribute the definition to anyone.
5	Emporis	Example	Let's note that they qualify their definition with "On emporis a skyscraper is:" . This should not be used for the lede sentence. Rather, it COULD be used in a sentence like "some standards define skyscrapers as buildings above 100 or 150 meters."
6	Ranking	No action	Not notable
7	blog	Quote added	Might not be reliable due to lack of peer review. It's itself cited so we can replace it with their citations, it even contains comment from cited autohrs. // Changed location closer to claim. // Claim does not fully correspond to quote, the article's claims that X was the first skyscraper, the article claims that no one knows which one was the first, but X is a great contender. It also does not propose that Y is the first skyscraper, just that it was the first with a steel frame. Will fix in later stage.
8	ante-bellum skyscraper	Quote added	Good article // Will probably reword the paragraph to bring claims closer to sources wordings, proto-skyscraper is good, but not actually used in the article// Relocated ref closer to claim.
9	not the first skyscraper	No action	Not an expert, can't exactly follow the argument being made.

Comments are welcome. Feel free to continue with this project by creating a similar table, you can start where I left off (from 10) or you can verify 1 through 9 and add quotes from 10 onwards. I am myself not an expert on this topic and it's not my greatest interest, so help with this would be appreciated so I can work on topics better suited for me.

I generally feel that this is a more productive endeavour than our previous bikeshedding, perhaps after we complete a review of the existing refereces we will be in a better position to resolve the lede conflict.

There's 77 sources to go.

Regards, Tomás --TZubiri (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2