Talk:Early skyscrapers

Title

The title seems informal (also hard to find, as it does not begin with the subject but an adjective.) Skyscrapers (History) would seem better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting point. Though I'm not sure that article titles are covered in the GA criteria - except maybe under NPOV - criteria 4. Did you intend to make this point in the GA review, or was it aimed at the article talkpage? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk page moved now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC) However, your point about neutrality may broadly cover it: is the article about skyscrapper history (eg. encyclopedic in scope) or some selected early skyscrapers. It seems to aim is for the former but the title suggests a lesser (perhaps arbitrary) coverage. In addition to the other title issues. (Lots of good effort on the article by the by (so thanks to the primary contributor for that) Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd avoided "skyscrapers (history)", as it deliberately doesn't go beyond 1939. The academic literature usually breaks at the that date, producing detailed histories (which is what I was initially aiming at here) on either the "early" period, or alternatively "modern skyscrapers" (or a variant like "modern/post modern skyscrapers", "post-war skyscrapers" etc.) An article that aimed to do the overall history of skyscrapers would be a great article - but it would almost certainly need subarticles for those broad periods, just because of length. I considered something like "skyscrapers (history, 1870-1939)" - or a MOS compliant variant thereof! - but I'll admit it felt less natural and less in accordance with the language used in the literature. If folks feel that the current version doesn't fit with the MOS, we do need to change it though, and I'm definitely not an expert in MOS titles! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you just chose the best one. "Early" seems vague but there you go. Seems "Skyscrapers (1870-1939)" would be better but I can't see it as required. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm possibly right! I wouldn't stand in the way of a title change though if you wished to make it. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Even more shocking, I'm possibly wrong! But I will think longer about it and mayhap discover that's not possible after all. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"Early skyscrapers" was a common term I found when doing a bit of background reading. It is the term used in reliable sources, and has the advantage of being WP:NATURAL. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion...

Horst,

I've taken the discussion to the talk page, as per WP:BRD. A couple of bits:

• The lead of an article should summarise the contents - see WP:LEAD. It doesn't need to be cited (with some exceptions, such as direct quotes) provided the material is cited later on in the article. Just editing the lead of an article, by for example bringing in the concept of Classicism in 1980s skyscrapers, without working on the text in the main sections, causes some difficulties.
• As per WP:LEAD, the intro should not typically have more than four paragraphs.
• Citations do matter, and they need to be accurate; the web site being referred to to support the statement that "With the movements of Postmodernism, New Urbanism and New Classical Architecture, that established since the 1980s, a more classical approach is taken on skyscraper design by various architects", for example, makes no reference to New Urbanism or Postmodernism that I can see.
• In terms of the weighting to the classical theme in 1980s+ skyscrapers, the reference given doesn't seem to say that a more classical approach is taken by most architects of current skyscrapers - only 2-3 named individuals. Given this, and the fact that this is an article on skyscrapers up to 1939, I'd also suggest that we'd need to explain the link between these events in the 1980s, and early skyscrapers - what are we trying to capture or say about the theme in the article? (e.g. did early skyscraper design drive or encourage this later approach? If so, and referenced, I'd support it forming part of the legacy section)
• The weight given to aspects of a lead should reflect the article as a whole. I think that mentioning the Seven Sisters later in the article is a good idea, and was a good spot by yourself, but I'd dispute that it belongs in the lead (given that it was built in 1947, eight years after the end of the period being covered in the article) - it isn't a prominent example you'd find in the opening paragraphs of most books about early skyscraper design. Clearly happy to discuss further.
• On mundane wiki issues: Over-wikilinking. Have a look at WP:OVERLINK.
• Similarly mundane: The citation style of additions should be consistent with the rest of the article (as per WP:CITE); have a look at how I've formatted the reference for Paperny later in the piece.

I'd welcome your thoughts. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive approach HCHC. Now I'm willing to get into this in more detail. The main trigger for me to add the postmodern and related movements is this line that leaves the reader without any context on counter-developments: "Skyscraper projects after World War II typically rejected the designs of the early skyscrapers, instead embracing the international style; many older skyscrapers were redesigned to suit contemporary tastes or even demolished" While this is certainly true, it should be put into context. Classical architecture language never ceased to exist, it was just that it was grinded down by modernist academics. And the Seven Sisters perfectly illustrate that the classical skyscraper period extended well beyond 1939. You could steam it down to saying that "during Socialist Classicism, classical style skyscrapers were constructed" but I don't feel that's more convenient than giving the 7 Sisters as the prominent example.

So that's where I'm getting at the 1939 barrier. It's true the War brought skyscraper construction around the world to a halt. But we shouldn't conclude it immediately changed the way skyscrapers were constructed. This needs to be put into context as well, and especially in the lead. So I think the restriction of the topic to this period is legit, but should also allow for additions beyond that. After all, it also serves as the main article on classical architecture skyscrapers. We could create a separate article on that, but I think it'd create too much confusion and parallels, a waste of effort. This article could and should have a wider scope. -- All the best Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I've got some (real world!) work to finish off over the next hour or so, but will reply properly in a bit when I'm free from that. Thanks again, Hchc2009 (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think your points about the 1939 barrier are really interesting; when I did the first draft for this one, dealing with the disjuncture at the end of the period was one of the challenges that kept coming up in terms of structure (and is reflected in the books etc. on the topic). I'd welcome the idea of, say, adding an additional paragraph to the legacy section to further capture some of the lasting impact of the early designs on later constructions/design.

I'm perhaps more sanguine than yourself about being able to tackle classical-style skyscrapers separately from early skyscrapers; the two are, in my opinion, rather different themes, albeit inevitably overlapping during the time period under discussion. I'd envisage that an article such as "Classical skyscrapers" or "Classical architecture in skyscrapers" would run from the 19th century up until the present day, and would focus much more on the architecture, and considerably less on the social history and technology, perhaps making use of that additional space to explore the aesthetic and design issues in much more depth. (NB: having typed this paragraph, I've realised that there's a redirect from Classical skyscrapers to here; I'd be enthusiastic about someone turning this from a redirect into a proper article on classicism in skyscraper design!)

In terms of a way forward, would you be up for the two of us working up an additional, cited paragraph on the talk page, with the aim of it then going into the legacy section, and then working through the lead to ensure that it reflected the additional material adequately?

Separately, I'd be quite supportive of the idea of us using some of this article as a core for a separate "Classical architecture..."; I'm not very strong on more recent skyscraper design, though - my love of the architecture stops around the 1930s! Hchc2009 (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Very good thoughts and I agree with your proposal to properly include the contextual information here and create a seperate article on classical skyscraper design that prevails until today. Though I'm not bursting of leisure time, we could go into this soon. Thanks! -- Regards Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. I'm a bit knackered tonight, but will a try and take a stab at the contextual bit tomorrow night. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've been having a think about this. I suspect a good paragraph in the legacy could run something like this: (NB: not word-smithed!) "Architectural themes from the early skyscrapers have been drawn on by various modern skyscraper architects. The classical themes have been used by... Post-modern skyscrapers such as... have used... from the 1920s etc." This would bound the issues to the topic of the article (early skyscrapers) but still pull out the architectural continuities beyond the period. The trick may be finding decent sources to support each of the statements. I'm back home on Thursday night (I'm currently travelling with work) and will have a scout through my book collection then. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That'd be lovely Hchc2009, thank you! Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, had a look through Sheppard. He generally argues that the later skyscrapers took the international style as their starting point, rather than earlier themes, although draws parallels between the Panhellenic House and the CBS buildings, and between the PPG and HRB and Saarinen's Chicago Tribune design. Will have a look through a couple more and see what they've got. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

English

what was the first skyscraper 49.147.178.201 (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

FA?

@Epicgenius: I've cleaned up some copyediting tasks and removed duplinks. Do you think, content-wise, that this is nearing FAC stage? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson, in my view, yes, this looks just about good enough to be FA quality. However, I think we should ask @Hchc2009, the primary contributor to this article (who was active as recently as last month) to see whether they want to bring this article to FAC. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point, I was simply looking at the most recent 50 edits and saw our two names the most. I'll await Hchc's response. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Hchc2009: I know you are no longer especially active on Wikipedia, but do we have your permission to nominate this for FAC on your behalf? Looking at the revision history stats, you are responsible for about 90 percent of this article's content, so this decision is largely yours. (Also, I don't believe anyone competing is entitled to WikiCup points, but I don't really care about that here.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

John, EpicGenius, many thanks for pinging me, and hope you're both well. I'd be delighted if this article went to FA. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

FA fail

@John M Wolfson: Instead of having to rewrite the page as it seems was suggested at FAC―presumably broadening the scope beyond its current size, which at over 10K words is big enough already—I'm kinda surprised no-one thought to tailor the page title to the article instead. It is, I would suggest, and an assertion that the current sourcing clearly backs, obviously notable even with the added parameters of time and place. SN54129

• So I note that, in fact, you prefer to blindly revert than to check the talk page first? SN54129 20:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• I do generally believe that these are the early skyscrapers in the "true"/modern sense of that word; what the FAC mainly failed on that I felt incapable of addressing adequately, was the breadth of the sourcing brought up by SC. There's certainly an argument to be made for a title change, but I feel as though WP:RM is the appropriate venue and that the FAC alone provided insufficient consensus for the change. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• If you don't like long titles, American skyscrapers, 1884—1945 would work equally well, I guess. I'm not saying FAC suggested it, I'm suggesting that this (or something akin) would have addressed the issue as raised. SN54129 20:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Fair enough on the FAC part. I did, however, construe SC's oppose to also be about the lack of certain sources even with this domain, and I don't believe I would have been able to deal with those in a timely manner. (That title is fine, but I reiterate my assertion that NY/Chicago skyscrapers are the early skyscrapers enough so a move isn't needed.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
    • ​ No worries, just a shame that's all. None of us here should feel pressured into doing what we don't want to do 👍 SN54129 13:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

    I think the scope of the article could be just right, but the article should perhaps make a better argument for why that scope is just right. Once both "skyscraper" and "early skyscraper" are properly defined in accordance with sources, it should become clear what should be in and what should not. For something like "American skyscrapers before 1945" you would still need to explain why you delineate the scope that way, and it would likely still be worth to discuss foreign influence on American architects and their influence on foreign architecture. —Kusma (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)