Text and/or other creative content from this version of Madison Square was copied or moved into One Madison Park with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
A fact from One Madison appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 July 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Who has awarded the restaurant four stars? Otherwise "four-star" simply means "expensive and pretentious".-- Wetman ( talk) 01:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The quote "At 617 feet (188 m) it is slightly taller than the landmarked 614 feet (187 m) Met Life Tower across the street and dominates the skyline looking south from the park" seems to be incorrect. The wiki page for the Metropolitan Life Insurance Tower and the emporis page state its height at 700 feet. This would also be consistent with it being the world's tallest at the time it was built in 1909. Does anyone have further official height of the Met Life Tower? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.56.68.216 ( talk) 13:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
According to Emporis, the Met Life Tower is 213.36 metres (700.0 ft) (and someone on the Skyscraper page forum claims that's 700 feet 1 inch from the ground to the pinnacle) while One Mad Park is 188.22 metres (617.5 ft). (These are both "Height (architectural)" as opposed to "Height (tip)" or "Height (roof)") Someone on the Skyscraper forum suggested that heights of residential buildings are often given to the top of the last occupied floor, and speculated that the One Mad could actually be as high as 650 ft., but no one seems to be suggesting that it is taller than the Met Life Tower, which was the original claim. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I work for Rubenstein Communications and I'm proposing the following updates to the page's info box on behalf of One Madison. To mitigate conflict of interest issues, I ask that an editor review the edits and take them live as they see fit. If no objections are had and no edits are made within three days, I will go ahead and update the entry myself. NinaSpezz ( talk) 20:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Although much of the area nearby is included in various historic districts – such as the Ladies Mile Historic District, Gramercy Park Historic District and Madison Square North Historic District – the location of One Madison is not, enabling the building to be constructed "as of right" with the transfer of air rights from the shorter buildings that surround the site. Because of its height, the 600-foot building boasts 360-degree views. [1] When the building was originally announced, it was to be 47 stories and called "The Saya"; the name was changed to One Madison Park around the time that construction began in 2006 and then to One Madison after it was taken over by the Related Companies. The building as constructed has 60 stories.[2] [2]
At one point, a 22-story building designed by noted architect Rem Koolhaas was to be the "companion" to One Madison Square, on 22nd Street,[3] but later plans called for an 11-story building designed by Cetra/Ruddy, the firm that designed One Madison; although at the time construction resumed in January 2013, permits had been issued for a 6-story building,[4] which will include the main entrance lobby and two apartments.[3] [5] The building is designed by BKSK Architects and will feature a terra-cotta and glass façade. [3] Koolhaas designed the interiors of many of the condominium's amenities, which was planned to include a private screening room, an upscale restaurant run by chef Charlie Trotter,[6] a spa and fitness room, and a wine cellar.[7] The building, which contains 53 residential units, [4] is topped by an 6,850-square-foot triplex penthouse with a 586-square-foot wraparound terrace. [5]
As of April 2010, the building had topped out, but was still not complete, having run into financial difficulties. Sales of residential units had stopped, but the appointment of a receiver on April 15 allowed sales to start again.[9] The building continued to be mired in financial and legal problems, including multiple lawsuits and allegations of fraud,[7] and was forced into bankruptcy by some of its creditors in June 2010.[10] The building is currently owned by a consortium of creditors, including Related Companies, the CIM Group and HFZ Capital Group, who are completing construction. Sales resumed in 2013.[11][12][10]
Interiors
When Related Companies took over One Madison, about half of the units were finished, with interiors designed by Cetra/Ruddy, the architecture firm that also designed the building’s exterior. For the remaining apartments, which were in various states of completion, the new owners hired the interior design firm Yabu Pushelberg, which also created the interiors of the new main lobby an 23 East 22nd Street and the amenity spaces. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinaSpezz ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I will look over your suggestions and make those changes I think are appropriate., and other editors can do the same, or dispute my decisions. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
If you have additional suggestions, I look forward to seeing them, but I do not recommend that, given your clear conflict of interest, you make any direct edits to the article, even if you get no response here. Feel free to ping me if you'd like. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Would you mind passing the word around the public relations community that dealing with their clients' needs in regards to Wikipedia is easier (and more pleasant) to do in this fashion - straight-forward and above board, with everyone knowing who the request is comiing from and what interests they represent - rather than by stealth? Generally, when I find out that some supposedly neutral editor actually has a massive conflict of interest from being a public relations representative of the subject of an article, I have little or no interest in helping them, and instead work harder at preventing them from editing the article. But if everything's up front, and the requests are reasonable and (as in this case) accompanied by citations from reliable sources, there's really no reason not to be helpful. If that message could get out, it would help to ease the strain between the Wikipedia community and the world of public relations. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
according to google's page for the building on google maps, the build has closed down? I feel like the Wikipedia page should mention that, and could someone find a source for that, besides google maps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:8A00:659D:9912:2936:DE8F:40 ( talk) 22:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Beyond My Ken:, can you explain why you reverted my edit without comment? It seemed pretty benign and uncontroversial to me. I added a link for Fredrik Eklund and changed the mention of his book, which seemed excessive/commercial and isn't even mentioned on his own page, to his main notabile attribute - the fact that he is a Bravo TV reality star on Million Dollar Listing New York. I'm genuinely confused. - Paul T +/ C 02:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I see in the article history that this has been contested, so before making this change I want to discus it here first. Currently the infobox has a number of items that start with a lowercase letter (bolded below):
Per general infobox convention as well as specific sections in MOS:CAPS, namely MOS:SENTENCECAPS, MOS:HEADCAPS, and the sentence case note "a" on MOS:CAPS, I believe each of these items should start with a capital letter (the bolded letter). These words are similar to a new section/heading or new sentence and therefore should be capitalized as is customary for these kinds of words. I'd love to understand the rationale behind not capitalizing these items. - Paul T +/ C 04:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses sentence case for sentences, article titles, section titles, table headers, image captions, list entries (in most cases), and entries in infoboxes and similar templates, among other things. Any instructions in MoS about the start of a sentence apply to items using sentence case.
It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
Wikipedia uses sentence case for ... entries in infoboxes .... Any instructions in MoS about the start of a sentence apply to items using sentence case.What is the exception for not attempting to follow the guideline in the infobox template on this page? - Paul T +/ C 06:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.So, the guideline is the "generally accepted standard" and editors "should attempt to follow" it unless common sense or an occasional exception dictates otherwise. You not attempting to follow the guideline, and are effectively ignoring it.It is clear in the MoS in this case what should happen to these words in the infobox:
Wikipedia uses sentence case for ... entries in infoboxes .... Any instructions in MoS about the start of a sentence apply to items using sentence case.You haven't made a reasonable argument for an exception (while also taking into account the specific guideline in question) and common sense (i.e. seeing what others do and have done in this situation) shows capitalizing the words, and yet you insist that somehow the guidelines don't apply here because they are guidelines and therefore not required.Do you think it would be helpful to get a third opinion in here on this? I'd welcome a fresh set of eyes on this to verify I'm not completely misreading this somehow. - Paul T +/ C 06:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
So, would you object to getting input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City? The "not mandatory" part from the guidelines is limited to specific cases where the guidelines don't make sense for whatever reason in the specific context in question. In this case, the guidelines make sense and, unless there is a good reason to ignore them, should be followed for consistency throughout the project. I have not seen an argument from you other than guidelines are not mandatory and therefore it doesn't matter what the MoS says. - Paul T +/ C 07:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Or maybe Wikipedia:Third opinion and/or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters? - Paul T +/ C 07:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
3O Response: I agree that exceptions can be made to Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS) where there is a good reason, but I see no good reason here. It is generally best to follow the MOS so that (1) articles will have a consistent look, and (2) to avoid pointless style-based edit warring. The guidelines quoted above are valid. I tend to think of the infobox as being like a series of lists (sometimes lists that have only one element), and the MOS says that we can capitalize list definitions for consistent formatting, even when some are sentence fragments ( MOS:LISTCASE). Otherwise, the capitalized definitions in the infobox could be perceived to have undue weight over the non-capitalized definitions, emphasizing certain characteristics over others, which in the worst cases could violate neutral point-of-view. I completely agree that these definitions should have an initial capital. While third opinions are non-binding, this is pretty obvious and I am very confident that pursuing this through other processes would arrive at the same conclusion. I will further note Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and hope that editors whose behaviour has been corrected in the past would gain some wisdom from the experience. – Reidgreg ( talk) 15:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC) Coastside likes this.
Unless a word is the beginning of a sentence, or a proper noun, there is no need or requirement to capitalize it.Let me take that argument one step further.Is there any policy that states that anything *needs* to be capitalized? I'm not aware of any. I'm pretty sure everything about that kind of thing is in the MoS, which is an "optional" guideline, right? Therefore, could there be an article that was comprised entirely of lowercase letters if it otherwise followed policy (was notable, etc.) *and* the main editor of the page insisted that there was no need or requirement for capital letters as you have? No, right?Do you see how that is a little silly?I understand that you don't agree that "rules" should be followed slavishly or blindly and that there should be room for interpretation/improvisation. Generally, I'm all for that, but only in situations where it make sense. I don't see how not following the "rules" here makes any sense other than to be obstinate.We are here to build an encyclopedia. You've done great work on this article and all I'm trying to do is improve it further. I'd really appreciate it if you would compromise on this. - Paul T +/ C 08:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Every Infobox I can find uses sentence case, with first letter capitalized, for entries in Infoboxes. I couldn't find any Infobox that didn't use sentence case. Not one. I could only find an occasional entry in an Infobox that was lower case, and that was for a web url or some other exception, and even then the rest of the Infobox followed sentence case. 3O was correct, and I agree this appears to be an unreasonable choice to go against what is obviously standard practice. Regarding having written 49.9% of the article, no one owns articles. We could do a straw poll, or an RfC, but why waste everyone's time? This is obviously not how Infoboxes are almost universally formatted and there is no good reason to do it differently here. Coastside ( talk) 10:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
For comparison to every other Info box for buildings building: Infoboxes on building Coastside ( talk) 11:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a mix of three date formats throughout this article
My undestanding is that these should all be consistent throughout the article. My preference is for either Day Month Year or YYYY-MM-DD, but I'm open to any of the three. I can see an argument for Month Day, Year throughout since this is the American standard and this article primarily relates to an American issue. Does anyone else have a preference? - Paul T +/ C 21:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Done - Paul T +/ C 16:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The building is not on Madison Avenue in any respect. It is, in fact, at the foot of Madison Avenue, where it begins at 23rd Street, so it's physically impossible for it to have an entrance on Madison, unless they were to build a tunnel under 23rd Street (which they haven't). There was an entrance to the building on 23rd Street during construction, but there's no public entrance there now -- although there does seem to be an unlabeled service entrance of some sort. The building could not be addressed as 1 Madison Avenue because that was already the address of the Met Light building on the NE corner on 23rd and Madison. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Madison Square was copied or moved into One Madison Park with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
A fact from One Madison appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 July 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Who has awarded the restaurant four stars? Otherwise "four-star" simply means "expensive and pretentious".-- Wetman ( talk) 01:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The quote "At 617 feet (188 m) it is slightly taller than the landmarked 614 feet (187 m) Met Life Tower across the street and dominates the skyline looking south from the park" seems to be incorrect. The wiki page for the Metropolitan Life Insurance Tower and the emporis page state its height at 700 feet. This would also be consistent with it being the world's tallest at the time it was built in 1909. Does anyone have further official height of the Met Life Tower? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.56.68.216 ( talk) 13:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
According to Emporis, the Met Life Tower is 213.36 metres (700.0 ft) (and someone on the Skyscraper page forum claims that's 700 feet 1 inch from the ground to the pinnacle) while One Mad Park is 188.22 metres (617.5 ft). (These are both "Height (architectural)" as opposed to "Height (tip)" or "Height (roof)") Someone on the Skyscraper forum suggested that heights of residential buildings are often given to the top of the last occupied floor, and speculated that the One Mad could actually be as high as 650 ft., but no one seems to be suggesting that it is taller than the Met Life Tower, which was the original claim. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I work for Rubenstein Communications and I'm proposing the following updates to the page's info box on behalf of One Madison. To mitigate conflict of interest issues, I ask that an editor review the edits and take them live as they see fit. If no objections are had and no edits are made within three days, I will go ahead and update the entry myself. NinaSpezz ( talk) 20:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Although much of the area nearby is included in various historic districts – such as the Ladies Mile Historic District, Gramercy Park Historic District and Madison Square North Historic District – the location of One Madison is not, enabling the building to be constructed "as of right" with the transfer of air rights from the shorter buildings that surround the site. Because of its height, the 600-foot building boasts 360-degree views. [1] When the building was originally announced, it was to be 47 stories and called "The Saya"; the name was changed to One Madison Park around the time that construction began in 2006 and then to One Madison after it was taken over by the Related Companies. The building as constructed has 60 stories.[2] [2]
At one point, a 22-story building designed by noted architect Rem Koolhaas was to be the "companion" to One Madison Square, on 22nd Street,[3] but later plans called for an 11-story building designed by Cetra/Ruddy, the firm that designed One Madison; although at the time construction resumed in January 2013, permits had been issued for a 6-story building,[4] which will include the main entrance lobby and two apartments.[3] [5] The building is designed by BKSK Architects and will feature a terra-cotta and glass façade. [3] Koolhaas designed the interiors of many of the condominium's amenities, which was planned to include a private screening room, an upscale restaurant run by chef Charlie Trotter,[6] a spa and fitness room, and a wine cellar.[7] The building, which contains 53 residential units, [4] is topped by an 6,850-square-foot triplex penthouse with a 586-square-foot wraparound terrace. [5]
As of April 2010, the building had topped out, but was still not complete, having run into financial difficulties. Sales of residential units had stopped, but the appointment of a receiver on April 15 allowed sales to start again.[9] The building continued to be mired in financial and legal problems, including multiple lawsuits and allegations of fraud,[7] and was forced into bankruptcy by some of its creditors in June 2010.[10] The building is currently owned by a consortium of creditors, including Related Companies, the CIM Group and HFZ Capital Group, who are completing construction. Sales resumed in 2013.[11][12][10]
Interiors
When Related Companies took over One Madison, about half of the units were finished, with interiors designed by Cetra/Ruddy, the architecture firm that also designed the building’s exterior. For the remaining apartments, which were in various states of completion, the new owners hired the interior design firm Yabu Pushelberg, which also created the interiors of the new main lobby an 23 East 22nd Street and the amenity spaces. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinaSpezz ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I will look over your suggestions and make those changes I think are appropriate., and other editors can do the same, or dispute my decisions. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
If you have additional suggestions, I look forward to seeing them, but I do not recommend that, given your clear conflict of interest, you make any direct edits to the article, even if you get no response here. Feel free to ping me if you'd like. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Would you mind passing the word around the public relations community that dealing with their clients' needs in regards to Wikipedia is easier (and more pleasant) to do in this fashion - straight-forward and above board, with everyone knowing who the request is comiing from and what interests they represent - rather than by stealth? Generally, when I find out that some supposedly neutral editor actually has a massive conflict of interest from being a public relations representative of the subject of an article, I have little or no interest in helping them, and instead work harder at preventing them from editing the article. But if everything's up front, and the requests are reasonable and (as in this case) accompanied by citations from reliable sources, there's really no reason not to be helpful. If that message could get out, it would help to ease the strain between the Wikipedia community and the world of public relations. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
according to google's page for the building on google maps, the build has closed down? I feel like the Wikipedia page should mention that, and could someone find a source for that, besides google maps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:8A00:659D:9912:2936:DE8F:40 ( talk) 22:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Beyond My Ken:, can you explain why you reverted my edit without comment? It seemed pretty benign and uncontroversial to me. I added a link for Fredrik Eklund and changed the mention of his book, which seemed excessive/commercial and isn't even mentioned on his own page, to his main notabile attribute - the fact that he is a Bravo TV reality star on Million Dollar Listing New York. I'm genuinely confused. - Paul T +/ C 02:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I see in the article history that this has been contested, so before making this change I want to discus it here first. Currently the infobox has a number of items that start with a lowercase letter (bolded below):
Per general infobox convention as well as specific sections in MOS:CAPS, namely MOS:SENTENCECAPS, MOS:HEADCAPS, and the sentence case note "a" on MOS:CAPS, I believe each of these items should start with a capital letter (the bolded letter). These words are similar to a new section/heading or new sentence and therefore should be capitalized as is customary for these kinds of words. I'd love to understand the rationale behind not capitalizing these items. - Paul T +/ C 04:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses sentence case for sentences, article titles, section titles, table headers, image captions, list entries (in most cases), and entries in infoboxes and similar templates, among other things. Any instructions in MoS about the start of a sentence apply to items using sentence case.
It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
Wikipedia uses sentence case for ... entries in infoboxes .... Any instructions in MoS about the start of a sentence apply to items using sentence case.What is the exception for not attempting to follow the guideline in the infobox template on this page? - Paul T +/ C 06:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.So, the guideline is the "generally accepted standard" and editors "should attempt to follow" it unless common sense or an occasional exception dictates otherwise. You not attempting to follow the guideline, and are effectively ignoring it.It is clear in the MoS in this case what should happen to these words in the infobox:
Wikipedia uses sentence case for ... entries in infoboxes .... Any instructions in MoS about the start of a sentence apply to items using sentence case.You haven't made a reasonable argument for an exception (while also taking into account the specific guideline in question) and common sense (i.e. seeing what others do and have done in this situation) shows capitalizing the words, and yet you insist that somehow the guidelines don't apply here because they are guidelines and therefore not required.Do you think it would be helpful to get a third opinion in here on this? I'd welcome a fresh set of eyes on this to verify I'm not completely misreading this somehow. - Paul T +/ C 06:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
So, would you object to getting input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City? The "not mandatory" part from the guidelines is limited to specific cases where the guidelines don't make sense for whatever reason in the specific context in question. In this case, the guidelines make sense and, unless there is a good reason to ignore them, should be followed for consistency throughout the project. I have not seen an argument from you other than guidelines are not mandatory and therefore it doesn't matter what the MoS says. - Paul T +/ C 07:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Or maybe Wikipedia:Third opinion and/or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters? - Paul T +/ C 07:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
3O Response: I agree that exceptions can be made to Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS) where there is a good reason, but I see no good reason here. It is generally best to follow the MOS so that (1) articles will have a consistent look, and (2) to avoid pointless style-based edit warring. The guidelines quoted above are valid. I tend to think of the infobox as being like a series of lists (sometimes lists that have only one element), and the MOS says that we can capitalize list definitions for consistent formatting, even when some are sentence fragments ( MOS:LISTCASE). Otherwise, the capitalized definitions in the infobox could be perceived to have undue weight over the non-capitalized definitions, emphasizing certain characteristics over others, which in the worst cases could violate neutral point-of-view. I completely agree that these definitions should have an initial capital. While third opinions are non-binding, this is pretty obvious and I am very confident that pursuing this through other processes would arrive at the same conclusion. I will further note Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and hope that editors whose behaviour has been corrected in the past would gain some wisdom from the experience. – Reidgreg ( talk) 15:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC) Coastside likes this.
Unless a word is the beginning of a sentence, or a proper noun, there is no need or requirement to capitalize it.Let me take that argument one step further.Is there any policy that states that anything *needs* to be capitalized? I'm not aware of any. I'm pretty sure everything about that kind of thing is in the MoS, which is an "optional" guideline, right? Therefore, could there be an article that was comprised entirely of lowercase letters if it otherwise followed policy (was notable, etc.) *and* the main editor of the page insisted that there was no need or requirement for capital letters as you have? No, right?Do you see how that is a little silly?I understand that you don't agree that "rules" should be followed slavishly or blindly and that there should be room for interpretation/improvisation. Generally, I'm all for that, but only in situations where it make sense. I don't see how not following the "rules" here makes any sense other than to be obstinate.We are here to build an encyclopedia. You've done great work on this article and all I'm trying to do is improve it further. I'd really appreciate it if you would compromise on this. - Paul T +/ C 08:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Every Infobox I can find uses sentence case, with first letter capitalized, for entries in Infoboxes. I couldn't find any Infobox that didn't use sentence case. Not one. I could only find an occasional entry in an Infobox that was lower case, and that was for a web url or some other exception, and even then the rest of the Infobox followed sentence case. 3O was correct, and I agree this appears to be an unreasonable choice to go against what is obviously standard practice. Regarding having written 49.9% of the article, no one owns articles. We could do a straw poll, or an RfC, but why waste everyone's time? This is obviously not how Infoboxes are almost universally formatted and there is no good reason to do it differently here. Coastside ( talk) 10:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
For comparison to every other Info box for buildings building: Infoboxes on building Coastside ( talk) 11:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a mix of three date formats throughout this article
My undestanding is that these should all be consistent throughout the article. My preference is for either Day Month Year or YYYY-MM-DD, but I'm open to any of the three. I can see an argument for Month Day, Year throughout since this is the American standard and this article primarily relates to an American issue. Does anyone else have a preference? - Paul T +/ C 21:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Done - Paul T +/ C 16:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The building is not on Madison Avenue in any respect. It is, in fact, at the foot of Madison Avenue, where it begins at 23rd Street, so it's physically impossible for it to have an entrance on Madison, unless they were to build a tunnel under 23rd Street (which they haven't). There was an entrance to the building on 23rd Street during construction, but there's no public entrance there now -- although there does seem to be an unlabeled service entrance of some sort. The building could not be addressed as 1 Madison Avenue because that was already the address of the Met Light building on the NE corner on 23rd and Madison. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)