Talk:200 West Street

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

Move? 1[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: apparently moved by DMCer on 7 March 2010 without closing this discussion. Cnilep (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The building has never been referred to as the "Goldman Sachs New World Headquarters", only as "200 West Street". The building's lobby makes no mention of GS, and it is referred to by the company as "200 West Street". The "New World Headquarters" name was fabricated by a wikipedian and does not accurately describe the building's nomenclature.
    "Though the firm will fill the tower from top to bottom, including six vast trading floors, its name will appear nowhere on the building, which will simply be called 200 West Street." [1] User:24.211.245.165 02:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move? version 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

200 West Street → 200 West Street (New York) —* Many towns and cities likely have a West Street, and some of those West Streets likely have addresses up to or past 200. This building in New York may be very famous to Americans, but I here in England (and thus likely many more people) had never heard of it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as unnecessary precision. There is no other article currently on WP with this name. Station1 (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have to agree that this is a common address. Normally I am opposed to additional disambiguation but in this case I think it's appropriate. My google search popped up a half dozen different options on the first page.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why "New York" instead of "New York City" ? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, redundant disambiguation, no other 200 West Street on Wikipedia, and even in the unlikely event that another 200 West Street somewhere will get an article, this one would probably still be the most notable, and therefore make any disambiguation pointless. 90.213.196.204 (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An IP edit with a single contribution, a bit suspicious.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless disambig is needed -- It can be moved later if disambiguation is needed. Until then, I see no reason to move it. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move? version 3[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Goldman Sachs New World Headquarters → 200 West Street — — There are articles for 40 Wall Street, 383 Madison Avenue, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, 60 Wall Street, 20 Exchange Place, and 500 Fifth Avenue. I'm sure there are plenty of 500 5th Avenues in the world, yet only one notable enough for Wikipedia. Likewise, until there is a similarly noteworthy 200 West Street, the building should be know by its proper name, as reported in the NYT [2] - 24.211.245.165 15:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move? version 4[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved back after a move without consensus. If you want to move the page, get consensus first. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goldman Sachs New World Headquarters → 200 West Street — Revert anti-consensus move User:24.211.240.63 16:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move? version 5[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No Consensus, page not moved  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

200 West Street → Goldman Sachs New World Headquarters — Goldman Sachs New World Headquarters is the official name: [3]. 200 West Street is the adress! All other Wikipedias use that name. Jerchel (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose move as proposed. The cited source does not support the proposed name, or even the existing name. That link shows the building being at 200 Murray Street. Which is it? I think someone needs to research this and provide some proof for WP:COMMONNAME. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more source to move: [4]. Jerchel (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is it officially secret?[edit]

The latest Jesse Ventura episode has him asking security on the entrance if it's the new Goldman Sachs and he got 'No Comment!'. --Leladax (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the infobox image be a quality image[edit]

@David J Johnson, Lawrence 979, Epicgenius, and Jim.henderson:, Should the infobox image be File:World Trade Center New York July 2013 001.jpg, an image the community has deemed to be a quality image based on its technical quality? The alternative image as User:Beyond My Ken has so disruptively placed back in the article shows the building obstructed and partially lit and is quite blurry. Filetime (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The pinged editors have been pinged given their prior edits to the page or involvement in similar discussions (regardless of their opinions in such discussions). Such pinging is explicitly allowed in the behavioral guidelines outlined at WP:CANVASS. Filetime (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 (Quality image alternative)
Option 2 (original image)
Option 3 (newly cropped image)

I would say while the first picture is of better quality. The second one, however, while showing a better view is really poor quality and (in my opinion) unfit for an infobox image. If you were to ask me which would be the better of the two options to use, I would say the first one. But if I wasn't to be restricted to the two images suggested, I think a better option would be to upload a higher quality image similar to the second image (from the front of the building) to the wikipedia commons and use that instead.

that was written by Lawrence 979 Lawrence 979 (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Sunset one as long as it is small on the page, though its poor technical quality shows when it's bigger and the composition is poor. And it was put in by someone I like. But yeah, I will go for the nicely composed darker one on the left and wonder whether I should try going there at sunset of a sunny day and get one that combines some of the merits of both. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, I'm leaning toward option 2, despite its lower resolution. While option 1 is a quality image, it may benefit from a crop because 1 WTC and another Brookfield Place structure are also prominent in the view. Option 2 definitely needs a crop. Furthermore, option 1 shows the side facade, which is less likely to be familiar to the readers than a view of the curved facade. Like Lawrence 979, I think it may be better to have a third option which shows the building's curved facade in higher quality. Perhaps Jim or Rhodo could capture it better than I would. Epicgenius (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. Thanks to Rhodo for adding that image. I believe the curved facade does represent the building better than the side facade from WTC. It's not as close up as option 1, either, which is a bonus. Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 is by far the better image visually, as it presents the primary facade of the building, and not a narrow facing, seen between two other buildings. Image #1 does not present the building in a way that services the needs of the reader to see what the building looks like. Once again -- as is usual -- Filetime has mistaken the technical quality of the photograph as being the most important factor, whereas, in reality, it's the visual quality of the image which is most important. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 (which I just cropped/added). A QI would be best, yes, but this building has a distinctive rounded facade that makes sense for the infobox. The second image has that, but its quality issues are visible even at thumbnail size. Among the images currently available, I cropped one to add a new option. It's quite low resolution, but the quality is ok for the size, the light is fine, and it sufficiently shows the facade. If I have time to head over to Jersey City for a shot myself, I will, but it won't be anytime soon. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 works for me, since it shows more of the building and features the rounded front facade. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 has the best points from the two earlier options. Is there too much foreground though? Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that in the best of all possible worlds there would be less foreground, but cropping in the middle of the sailboat would look awkward, and I'm not sure that cropping to the waterline would be enough foreground, although it's worth trying. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I played with a couple different crops, but wound up with too much land cut off, a partial sailboat, or the whole sailboat. It's not ideal, but I think this version is preferable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a problem. Thanks for this. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Notification of individual editors is to be avoided per WP:CANVASSING. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that the curved facade is a distinctive feature and should be illustrated in whichever photo is used. However I noticed that our article doesn't seem to mention this aspect of the building at all. Perhaps a sentence or two could be added. pburka (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very good point. I'm away from my library at the moment, but when I return I'll do some digging about that aspect of the design. If others have sources available, go for it!
    • I've added some details on the overall design and expanded the article as a whole. Epicgenius (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3. Splendid. Not many pixels since it's an excerpt, and I'd like to move the sailboat closer to the Manhattan shore, but what the heck; it's definitely the best of the three. Alas, the plague has kept me from the Jersey City waterfront this year and last, but I'll keep in mind that it's a good place for my long zoom to snap individual Manhattan buildings in the afternoon. Maybe hang round to dusk and see what kind of Golden Hour views can be had from the ferry home to Manhattan.

Just another option[edit]

Just uploaded another option. It's still not ideal, and in fact might not even be better than the current infobox image, but leaving it here to defer to others. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:52, 23 July 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 Kingsif (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Goldman Sachs headquarters, 200 West Street
Goldman Sachs headquarters, 200 West Street

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 22:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Expanded 5x (at least) the same day it was nominated. Long enough and neutrally written, with inline citations to reliable sources, mostly newspapers. Hooks are cited in the article and short enough; I think ALT1 is the most interesting. QPQ done. Image is free and is used in the article. Good to go. Cstickel(byu) (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:200_West_Street&oldid=1196559637"