User talk:2001:8000:1100:5800:B1F3:4DD2:A782:A171

August 2019
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Skyscraper, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Definitions change all the time; you're not going to call a "10 floor building" a skyscraper, when you have (real) skyscrapers of 50, or 100, or soon even 150+ floors. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 04:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Give me a logical reason why the first skyscraper should not be considered as a skyscraper. It was still recognized as such when it was demolished in 1931, and by that point 1,000 ft skyscrapers had been built. Are those 1,000 ft skyscrapers still considered skyscrapers? Of course! I do suspect that this "changing definition" is a deliberate attempt to downplay America's significance, so eventually, when there are enough over 2,000 ft or even 3,000 ft, skyscrapers will be inaccurately credited as a solely Asian phenomenon.

The first car is still considered to be a car, despite it's quaintness. It is still a real car. The first home computer is still considered to be a home computer, despite it's quaintness. It is still a real home computer. Nothing can change the fact that the skyscraper was invented in Chicago in the 1880s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.99.99 (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)