Talk:Millennium Tower (San Francisco)

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

Tags[edit]

The very necessity of tags is a point worthy of discussion. We are supposed to be writing the highest quality encyclopedia we can. I will grant you that tags are routinely placed at the top. But there is no policy requiring them. My placement of the tag at the bottom is intended to be a compromise position, in the interest of improving the quality of this project. If you object to that placement, then explain why; if you believe that they improve the overall project, please explain why. I shall not move or delete the tag at this time; I do believe in discussion. Unschool 03:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I removed the tag today because besides the current progress section, not much has changed about the building since I wrote this about a year ago. Hydrogen Iodide 03:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook Page[edit]

This link: http://www.facebook.com/pages/San-Francisco-CA/Millennium-Tower/14602289341 Was automatically rejected by a bot because of the "Facebook.com" domain. Please could an administrator add this link to the page, as it is relevant to the article.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.169.30 (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complete?[edit]

Is the building sufficiently finished to change the verb tense and describe it as extant? I believe people are moving in there now. Wikidemon (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Millennium Tower (San Francisco). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 15:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tilting[edit]

public disclosure[edit]

How long has it been well-known that the building was tipping? Because I swear I read about it long ago, as in at least a couple years, and in resident interviews it seems it has been known for years, discovered by rolling marbles or bad pool games etc. Though I may be confusing with another San Fran building where they were talking about earthquake engineering or retrofitting, and I recall hysteresis being a new word I learned. I hate feeling like info was lost or removed, as could happen here by overzealous defenders of the building and company. Thank you. B137 (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it seems I may have been thinking of One Rincon Hill, which talks about earthquake engineering/earthquake retrofitting, and mentions hysteresis. Though I know I've heard of the tilting building before because when it began making the rounds lately I didn't even click on the article right away, because I was already familiar with it. I do say this has been notable and sourced enough to have been here much longer than a few months. B137 (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Height[edit]

If a building sinks by over a foot this mean that all our height figures are off and need to be adjusted? Is there an official arbiter of these things? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an interesting point that is often overlooked, sometimes the taller or more famous buildings and bridges are measured to within inches, but these numbers can not last. B137 (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Millennium Tower (San Francisco). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name of development?[edit]

Millennium Tower is still the most common phrase in the press for the development, but actually only refers to one of the two structures on the 301 Mission Street development. I was wondering if we should change the name of the page to cover both buildings? I know with 345 California Street the building names are just listed in the infobox, but that might be a bad example because there is only one tower. For now just bolding 301 Mission seemed like an ok compromise, I'm kind of hesitant to move the whole page without other opinions.DPedersen (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

on concrete records[edit]

Would it be more important to point out that it's the tallest concrete structure in a 'level 4 seismic zone' overall, as per book source Reinforced Concrete Design of Tall Building rather than just that it's the tallest one in the city. B137 (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odd sentence[edit]

This sentence is in need of clarification:

Underpinning Millennium Tower
On December 4, 2018, Ronald Hamburger, the senior principal engineer at Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, revealed in a press release on a final resolution to the Millennium Tower's tilting and sinking problem by underpinning the building.

I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean. Has the plan been approved or is it a proposal? To "reveal on" something isn't idiomatic. Presumably the "on" should be dropped. Dynasteria (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Building Design Change[edit]

It is my understanding that the tower was originally designed as a steel structure but was later changed to a concrete structure. A steel structure would have been lighter in weight than a much heavier concrete structure, and the concrete construction that was ultimately used has accelerated the rate of settlement. Is this true and if so, why doesn't the article mention it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.176.10 (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 February 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - All the major news coverage I can find refers to this troubled building. Thus it is primary topic with respect to long term significance and primary with respect to usage. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: pages with content are ineligible as "new" page titles in a move request unless they, too, are proposed to be renamed. In this case Millennium Tower → Millennium Tower (disambiguation) had to be added to this request.--Estar8806 (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oppose - There are simply too many buildings called "Millennium Tower" to definitely call the San Francisco one the primary topic. Estar8806 (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And... do these other buildings have similar amount of coverage as the SF Millennium Tower? The story of the Millennium Tower in San Francisco went international. When I do a search for "millennium tower" the top result is about the Millennium Tower in San Francisco. I actually took a look one by one at each of those other Wikipedia articles we have and none of them go into this amount of depth about their respective topics as this one. This probably is a suggestion into what readers are most likely interested in? Are there also viewership statistics to suggest that there are interest in all of these buildings? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 03:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Neutral at least in part due to the vivid description of this situation at WP:RECENTism. Didn't dig any deeper and probably don't need to, because WP:NPOV and WP:NOT policies both apply. Dug deeper and pageviews over the last year support Frisco's MT as PTOPIC, so returning to neutral. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 04:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While the San Francisco one gets the most views by far, it's not so much in advance of all the others combined that I'd call it the obvious primary topic. (It gets ~300 views/day while the others combined get ~150 views/day). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are referring to [1].
    According to this, the most viewed page about "Millennium Tower" is... Help:Disambiguation? But seriously, the fact that Millennium Tower (San Francisco) gets more daily page views than the rest of the pages combined, even accounting for these redirect targets [2] tells a lot. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC certainly applies here. If the page views were distributed more evenly, or if the combined (daily) page views of all the other pages is greater than the number of (daily) page views for a single page, then I'd be convinced that this is not a primary topic. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 04:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not particularly notable in itself to merit primary topic over all the others. Walrasiad (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this just seems like Americentrism in addition to recentism. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @LilianaUwU: Can you explain how this can be an instance of "Americentrism"? I have even tried Google Trends and they have an entry on the San Francisco Millennium Tower and not any other Millennium Tower. Our goal is to aid readers with navigation, isn't it?
    As for recentism, I don't see how much of an issue that can be. Of course we are not a news site, but a lot of the information about the proposed fix to the building's tilting come from relatively reliable recent sources. This tower has been subject to ongoing coverage, as opposed to the others which has not, and interest in the building is worldwide.
    At the very most we can maybe reorder to put the SF Millennium Tower at the top, but I want to make sure that people are able to quickly find information without cumbersome navigation. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Millennium_Tower_(San_Francisco)&oldid=1209066083"