Talk:The New York Times Building

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

Text[edit]

While I appreciate there are items that must be addressed before Times Building will be wholly and completely finished, I believe that the text can describe the building as "completed", regardless of whether an external hoist has been dismantled. The building is now occupied and as such should be described as such for readers. Jaedglass 20:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Jaedglass[reply]

October 5 Revisions[edit]

I have made the changed previously suggested: changing tense where appropriate, removing unnecessary minutiae in the introduction and tenants sections, and clarifying thoughts in the Background section. I believe the changes make the article more encyclopedic, less prone to becoming dated, and a clearer read. Jaedglass 02:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethereal look?[edit]

...I'm stupid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.138.0.221 (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Relationship with other NYC skyscrapers[edit]

So did they purposely make this building 1 foot shorter than the Chrysler Building out of respect or is that just coincidence? Rubberchicken 19:58, 29 December 2006 (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]

Climbers[edit]

Why is there a section in this article called climbers? It seems to be only very superficially related to the building. I can imagine an article called "urban climbers" or something that would talk about people who climb buildings illegally, but adding a section to every building's article is pretty silly. maxsch (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to some informal Google news archive searches, 25% of all stories ever written about the building are about or at least mention the climbing incidents :-) I agree an entire section is overblown, but a sentence or two would be warranted. --Rividian (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the sentiment that the section on climbers needs to edited. I believe that this section focuses to much attention on the causes of these climbers. This seems like an attempt to create a forum for the political views of the climbers, which is not relevant to an article on this building. However, the building has proven to be a draw to a number of climbers - either because of its design or because a high-profile media organization is located inside - and that general fact does seem relevant to a complete article on the building.Jaedglass (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The climbing feat is notable within the parameters of Wikipedia. If professional readers or researchers like the Police would read Wiki, to research on these legal matters, inter alia, preserving this climbing thing would, in the future benefit Wiki readers. It is nonsense to contemplate climbing as petty thing. It is encyclopedic. --Florentino floro (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the climbs are notable, my issue is with their relevance to this article. I think a short section along the lines of what Jaedglass said, that the building has proven to be a draw to a number of climbers, would be reasonable. maxsch (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, Wikipedia articles are not static. Most of them rather, like stubs and start-classes metamorphose into great articles. Example:Bulacan State University which was created by a not so good Wiki editor, and later, after I added Bulacan Courts, with just 2 sentences - look, now, with BSU's great Information Technology students, BSU article is state of the Art. So, it is just a matter of style. Some editors like me, would like longer edits, since many links would die in time due to pay-per-view markets. So, it is better that other editors would trim my edits than I would add very little. Get the point? I suggest further, that instead of daily editing all my edits, you can contribute to Philippine movie articles which are very very poorly written without references. Parenthetically, if you would later contribute well and learn to edit Wikpedia stye, and, if you, like me - a "Most Excellent Grognard, Yeoman Editor" would be later entitled to this kind of editor thing, then you can command with Wiki authority. But as of now, please remain calm. --Florentino floro (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Florentino floro, I found your response to maxsch rather offensive, and for someone so confident as to puff up their writing and editorial skill, while disparaging the contributions of others, your English grammar is atrocious.

I began the article on the New York Times building and have contributed significantly to its content and editing. I do not believe it is your place to direct others, who have been active in the development of an article, to edit different pages to allow you a free hand to edit as you will. Two editors have expressed specific criticism of the content of this page; in particular the detailed information regarding the political motivations of each climber. Maxschmelling and I have neither suggested that the information is not encyclopedic, nor suggested that no information on the climbers appear on this page. Rather, we have proposed moving details of these events to more appropriate pages. Alain Robert already has a page into which that content can be folded, assuming that editors of that page have not done so. If protests of this kind are prevalent enough that "professional" readers or the police will seek information on Wikipedia as you suggest, then there should already be the critical mass to create a separate page on these events, linked to their target buildings, as Maxschmelling suggested. Jaedglass (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm biased because I work in the building, but the climbers are a significant part of the building's (at this time, short) history. Tourists are now drawn to it just because of those incidents. They're also trying to modify the building—by covering some of the lower gridwork with wood and by removing the lower ceramic rods—so as to make it less...well, climbable. So these incidents have definitely had a lasting impact on the building. Plus I think it's damned interesting that all of the climbers did it ostensibly to hang some banner to gain attention for some cause. It isn't like if editors to the Empire State Building article tried to describe why everyone who jumped wanted to commit suicide. Postdlf (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have no problem with the "Climbers" section per se, but I view wikipedia as an information outlet not an advertising outlet. The fact that wikipedia mentions the climbers' "causes," specifically a link to "The Solution is Simple" seems more like accomplishing what the climber wanted (aka publicity for the climber's personal cause) than what is important for the wikipedia fact-based community. Due to this, I feel like I should keep the name of the cause (as it is understandable if a reader is interested) but delete the link as it is a free outlet for advertising on a mass-trafficked website. Flypanam (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation[edit]

It seems like "The New York Times Building" could refer to one of three buildings, One Times Square, the building at 229 West 43rd Street (it does not seem to have an article), or the building that this article is about. I suggest that either disambiguation be made at the top of this article or that this become a disambiguation page. Since there are currently only two articles, I do not think that a disambiguation page is the way to go. Also, One Times Square has an alternative name to "The New York Times Building". However, if an article is written about the building at 229 West 43rd Street and it is not commonly referred to by another name (I do not know if it is or is not), I would suggest that this become a disambiguation page. -- Kjkolb (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

229 W. 43rd was definitely called The New York Times Building (NY Times article on designation as landmark) but the title seems to be used in recent news reports as often as former home of The New York Times or old New York Times Building. Tishman Speyer, who sold the building in June 2007 to Africa Israel USA, officially just called it by its street name on their site. When choosing titles we should probably consider what building people have in mind when searching for The New York Times Building. I'm all for creating a page at 229 West 43rd Street for the old building if addresses are in keeping with Wiki style. Too bad the Landmarks Preservation Commission hasn't digitized their old designations reports. Ando228 (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using the address seems a bit odd, but I am unaware of an convention for or against it. The usual practice is to use the most common name, unless there is a very good reason not to. Perhaps the article could be titled "The New York Times Building (former)". However, that would seem to limit the article's content to the time it housed The New York Times. Also, it suggests that the building has only housed The New York Times, but the building is planned for redevelopment. I suppose that the address could redirect to the article, and it could be mentioned as an alternative name, until such time that the address or another name clearly becomes the dominant name for it. If that time comes, the article could be moved. What do you think? -- Kjkolb (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's an established convention but there are more than 30 New York skyscrapers with entries titled by their address at the category for NYC skyscrapers. A similar situation to the old NY Times building seems to be at 383 Madison Avenue, which was formerly the Bear Stearns World Headquarters (and is still titled as such in-page). At the other end, another "formerly known as" building that doesn't use an address in the title is Sony Building (New York) (AT&T) but that has an anchor tenant. I would keep it as the address since that will never change. The opening sentence can address its former title since it's still largely known by that name, and we can link to it from this The New York Times Building page. And yes we can always rename the page if a large anchor tenant/owner comes along. Ando228 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on digging up examples of other articles with addresses for names, Ando228. Most common usage is the most important naming criterion, so I still suggest going with whatever name is currently most common, and changing the name in the future, if necessary. If the most common usage is the address, using it for the article name is fine with me. To determine most common usage, I would suggest Google and Google News searches (you can try limiting the Google searches to recently created/updated pages to get a feel of what is common now, instead of in the past, but I have found that that function does not work very well). It might be a good idea to ask a few Wikipedians who are New Yorkers, too. See Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City and Category:Wikipedians in New York City. You could ask them directly on their talk page or set up a poll. You could also invite New Yorkers to a poll using their talk pages. You do not have to do any of this if you do not want to, it is just a suggestion.
If you decide to go with the address, even if it is not the most common usage, I will not object. Using the address will probably become more common in the future anyway, unless a new anchor tenant takes up residence. I will leave the decision up to you and take this page off my watchlist. If you want to get my attention, please use my talk page. However, I am commonly absent for long periods, so it might be a while before I reply. -- Kjkolb (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should go by the Emporis naming structure and it calls this New York Times Tower. http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=newyorktimestower-newyorkcity-ny-usa I was getting ready to post an article about the 43rd Street name and found this. Since I'm almost done with it I will post it initially under its address 229 West 43rd Street but I think we need a New York Times Building (disambiguation) page. Americasroof (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I can agree to that. The building's website still uses "building", however the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, a good definitive source, uses New York Times Tower in their list of tallest buildings. Emporis is a great source but I wouldn't choose a building's name because of them. Please do create a New York Times Building (disambiguation) page. I would still use 229 West 43rd Street for the old NY Times building since the name is at the mercy of the owner/anchor tenant. Ando228 (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will follow the above recommendations. And for your amusement since the Times simultaneously owned One Times Square and 229 W. 43rd, they called 1 Times Square the "Times Tower." [1] Americasroof (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just goes to show... Thanks for doing the leg work. Ando228 (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

See Talk:The Dakota#Requested move for a discussion about using "the" in the name of an article about an NYC building. --Enkyo2 (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The New York Times Building. 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 01:17, 15 January 2016 (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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The New York Times Building
The New York Times Building

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 13:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.

QPQ: Unknown
Overall: I think ALT0 is the best, so reviewing for that. Several elements assumed to have been covered during the GAN, and the rest all check out. Image is fine but not particularly compelling, so not sure that promoter will choose to use it. Once QPQ is completed, this will be good to go. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: Thanks for the review. I've done a QPQ now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb, sorry to disturb you, but is there any update on the nomination? I did a QPQ four days ago. Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry about that! I missed this somehow. for ALT0. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALT0 to T:DYK/P4 without image

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelia Hahn Oberlander - Landscape Architect[edit]

I don't know how to edit a page, so I'd just like to suggest that you add a small sentence near where you describe the interior garden to Cornelia Hahn Oberlander who already has a page in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelia_Oberlander. She's an important landscape architect and is the namesake for the Oberlander Prize: https://www.tclf.org/prize. And the landscape architect for the garden in the building. Tjayrush (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_New_York_Times_Building&oldid=1210684734"