This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The New York Times Building article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The New York Times Building has been listed as one of the
Art and architecture good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 27, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | A fact from The New York Times Building appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 20 November 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
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
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)
...I'm stupid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.138.0.221 ( talk) 18:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
02:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius ( talk). Self-nominated at 13:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC).
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:
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)
ALT0 to T:DYK/P4 without image
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)
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. /info/en/?search=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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The New York Times Building article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The New York Times Building has been listed as one of the
Art and architecture good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 27, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | A fact from The New York Times Building appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 20 November 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
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
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)
...I'm stupid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.138.0.221 ( talk) 18:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
02:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius ( talk). Self-nominated at 13:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC).
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:
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)
ALT0 to T:DYK/P4 without image
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)
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. /info/en/?search=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)