Talk:Pencil tower

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Etymology?[edit]

This article popped up out of nowhere, so I think it needs some etymology of the term "pencil tower," since most of the citations are of "pencil-thin tower" "like pencils on the skyline" variety. Can't find a lot of use of the term, or origin of, "pencil tower." Can we get some clarification to make this entry an actual "thing"? Thanks. Ipanemo (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term came from Hong Kong. It is one of a few different building types in Hong Kong. It became a common noun in Hong Kong architecture circle. I can add more references. International media started using the term for newer New York buildings near the Central Park as you can see from UK and Australia media in the references using the term in double quote to highlight that it was borrowed from an established term. So, it is a real thing. Z22 (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See my edits. I think the article that I added as an inline citation which said "Pencil towers are defined by a height-to-width ratio of at least 10 to one..." should be a good enough reference for one definition of the "pencil tower" term. Z22 (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see the edits, thanks. My concern is that since the term "Pencil towers" is a descriptive, and not an industry standard application (rarely used in the US media, for example, to describe NYC towers), that it needs clarification as to its etymology upfront in the article. The Australia AU link you provide cites the term coming from a broken-link page, so doesn't clarify in actuality where the term came from. Even if it did, the use of "pencil towers" as a term should have a direct link to its creation and or earliest usage--especially since this is the first time we're seeing the term have its own entry, or be applied widely across Wikipedia.Ipanemo (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The term has evolved throughout decades. It is an industry standard term (a term that describe a specific type of buildings) used in the architecture, not just a generic descriptive term. It is one of 8 building types in Hong Kong. Have you read all the references in the "History" sections? Actually, the term has been used a lot for in the US for the NYC towers. I started with more international references in order to provide a world view, but sure, I can add more local references used by NYC people and US media on NYC buildings too. Z22 (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no disputing the use of the term "pencil-thin" to describe towers of a certain ratio, and that applies worldwide. What needs to be shown is the origin or definition of "pencil tower" specifically as it was first used. It is not an architecturally standard term in the U.S., and in fact shows up rarely in the media (super-thins appearing to be preferred, and super-talls if the correct ratios apply). Again, tracking down the etymology (as per the dead Architect AU link) will give this article more relevance and authority. Otherwise, one could argue that this article should be called "pencil thins" because of the predominance of that description. So it's not the concept behind the appellation, it's the origin of it. Simply: who specifically first coined or used the term "Pencil Tower" as as catch-all?Ipanemo (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found this link which provides an early use of the term being applied as a catch-all. Using it with the definition in the opening of the article should do the trick. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/02/opinion/whats-happening-to-the-skyline.html?WT.mc_id=2015-Q1-KEYWEE-AUD_DEV-0101-0331&WT.mc_ev=click&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1420088400&bicmet=1451624400&ad-keywords=FEBAUDDEV&kwp_0=9082&kwp_4=73568&kwp_1=124177 Ipanemo (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I added that as a reference and also put the origin of the term in Hong Kong on the lead to let readers know the context as per your suggestions. Z22 (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Ipanemo (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced and under-referenced[edit]

The article should not have such an exhaustive list of NYC buildings when it is about slender towers worldwide. Also, there are large sections of text, in some instances almost entire sections, that have no references. For example, Engineering has many factual statements about materials improvements and architectural strategies for constructing slender towers, with no references. I am considering doing the DYK, but this needs to be fixed first. David notMD (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: Thank you for your review of the article. I saw what you put in a tag for missing citation in the first paragraph of the History section as well as your example in the above on the one paragraph in the Engineering section. My understanding is that if we have the same reference that is the source for many things written in the same paragraph, we don't need to cite the same reference many times in the same paragraph. The sources that I used for those paragraphs happen to be very long articles. They contain information about many things discussed in each of those paragraphs so I only put the citation once only at the end of each paragraph. For example, the topic about the late 19th and early 20th century is part of the source article (a very long article) that is already cited at the end of the first paragraph of the History section. This is to prevent citation overkill (see WP:REPCITE). Same to the Engineering section. All facts are from the article (a long article from Civil Engineering magazine) that is already cited on the same paragraph. In term of balance, the overwhelming majority of the pencil towers in the world are only contained in Hong Kong and New York City (at least from what reliable sources tell us). I do have references for pencil towers examples of both cities. I already put one for United States. I can add a collapsable list in China section (because they are much longer) to make sure they are balance. Would that work? Outside of Hong Kong and New York City, all pencil towers that can be traced down to a reliable source are already mentioned in the article. Z22 (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For long paragraphs based on one ref I agree that the ref does not have to be repeated every sentence, but it should be used more than just at the end. Keep in mind that other people may add content into the existing paragraphs, with references, which would separate the first part of the existing paragraph from the second part that has the relevant reference. This is not a list article, so given that these slender buildings are increasingly common, providing 2-4 examples for Hong Kong and New York is all that is needed. You might consider adding a modest section on cities that have height restriction laws which prevent buildings of this nature. Content could be copied (with attribution) from Height restriction laws. David notMD (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed some of the concerns. Will add more on the issues with zoning laws. Z22 (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having lived in NYC 1980-85, I was aware of transferring air rights. Also of extra height allowed if the actual building left some of the lot as unbuilt space. This caused creation of sterile plazas with no people-inviting features. Now living in a small, semi-urban town with a downtown new- or replacement building requirement of no one-story buildings and a four-story limit, first floor retail. David notMD (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arrgh! I was looking at the article in preparation for doing the DYK review because I have to do one before I submit my own DYK for an article I raised to Good Article. But now, someone beat me to it. Congratulations. I hope it runs with the submitted image (the final reviewers have the option of dropping the image), and that it gets a nice one-day bump in viewers.

Anyway, much improved as to referencing, and balanced examples per city. I gave the article a C-class rating. David notMD (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on this article. I do notice there is some history on early slender towers that isn't mentioned. However, since these aren't called pencil towers, I don't think these would count.
Unrelated, but in regards to David notMD's comment about air rights, I think there might be a basis for an article about air rights specifically in relation to building height. It's a pretty complex issue and there's a lot of literature on it. Not sure if this is the case elsewhere as well, since I'm mostly familiar with NYC buildings (having lived there my whole life) and not so much with those in other cities. The current air rights article is quite broad and refers to several different things. Epicgenius (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Pencil towers in New York City
Pencil towers in New York City
  • ... that newer ultra luxury, super slender, and supertall skyscrapers in New York City (pictured) are known as pencil towers? Source: "Super-tall, super-skinny, super-expensive: the 'pencil towers' of New York's super-rich" link
  • ALT1:... that super slender, and supertall skyscrapers in New York City (pictured) are known as pencil towers? Source: "Super-tall, super-skinny, super-expensive: the 'pencil towers' of New York's super-rich" link
  • ALT2:... that newer slender skyscrapers in New York City (pictured) are known as pencil towers? Source: "Super-tall, super-skinny, super-expensive: the 'pencil towers' of New York's super-rich" link
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Arizona Falls

Created by Z22 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - The hook is a bit too much of a mouthful; I'd drop "ultra luxury" for not being NPOV as well.
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Needs a bit more work, but a good effort. SounderBruce 06:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review. I went back and double check each one of those ratios listed on the article and found two ratios that were not explicitly stated on the sources, so I removed those two. The remaining ratios are explicitly stated each by the first inline citation after it. I added ALT1 to shorten it per your suggestion. I also used the Earwig tool for potential copyvio and it only listed things like building names, "skyscrapers", "slenderness ratio", etc. Not sure if a specific part that could present a concern, we can address that. Z22 (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SounderBruce: I'm not sure what else we should do to improve the article to meet the standard for the DYK. Your inputs would be appreciated. Z22 (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about the wait, I am extremely busy right now and have limited time to edit. All three of the hooks still aren't quite right, as they repeat "super" and don't flow well. I think you should take another shot at them. SounderBruce 05:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ALT2 hook doesn’t have anything “super” in it at all and it seems okay to me. Maybe another editor can help with a hook suggestion. Thank you. Z22 (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment but I see no issues with ALT2's wording. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Challenges[edit]

Elevators: mechanical rooms and space required vs useful space? 74.127.200.170 (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pencil_tower&oldid=1206423861"