Line 338: | Line 338: | ||
::That would in the abstract be a good idea. However, floor-by-floor descriptions are uncommon. I have don't recall having ever seen one in an architectural article although I may be mistaken. With this in mind and the philosophy that a picture is worth a thousand words, the editors have requested a diagram. No one has requested a paragraph with further detail than what is currently in the text ("The design of the building includes, in order from the ground up, retail space, a parking garage, a hotel, and condominiums."). The diagram request formerly existed despite this text.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:LOTM]]) </small> 07:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
::That would in the abstract be a good idea. However, floor-by-floor descriptions are uncommon. I have don't recall having ever seen one in an architectural article although I may be mistaken. With this in mind and the philosophy that a picture is worth a thousand words, the editors have requested a diagram. No one has requested a paragraph with further detail than what is currently in the text ("The design of the building includes, in order from the ground up, retail space, a parking garage, a hotel, and condominiums."). The diagram request formerly existed despite this text.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:LOTM]]) </small> 07:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::Then may I suggest you take the first steps in making it popular? I demonstrated above that formatted text can communicate the same information as the picture did, and that invalidates any fair use rationale. [[User:Melesse|Melesse]] ([[User talk:Melesse|talk]]) 07:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
:::Then may I suggest you take the first steps in making it popular? I demonstrated above that formatted text can communicate the same information as the picture did, and that invalidates any fair use rationale. [[User:Melesse|Melesse]] ([[User talk:Melesse|talk]]) 07:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
It only conveys part of the information because it does not depict the building to scale in any way that helps the reader in a unified way with the image.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:LOTM]]) </small> 07:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Alright then, I personally don't know how to do that with wiki markup (which would be preferable), but I do know how to do it in Excel. You could make a table with some proportional cells, displaying the same data to the scale of the building. Or you could ask the graphics lab to make a graphic of that. If they think that's a copyvio then they're being silly, feel free to send them to me to talk about it. [[User:Melesse|Melesse]] ([[User talk:Melesse|talk]]) 07:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:35, 14 July 2008
“ | Have nunchucks. Will travel. - Antonio "Tony The Tiger" Vernon | ” |
affiliations | |
---|---|
WP:CHICAGO Director (2006–present) | |
WP:FOUR Director (2009–2014) (disputed, 2013–2014) | |
WP:WAWARD Director (2010–present) | |
M:WALRUS Committee (2011–2013) (2016–present) | |
WP:Ambassadors (2011–2012) |
“ | Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'—Martin Luther King Jr. | ” |
“ | Have nunchucks. Will travel. - Antonio "Tony The Tiger" Vernon | ” |
“ | Freedom of expression does not truly exist if the right can be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots. - Abe Fortas 393 U.S. 503 (1969) | ” |
2010 WP:CUP submissions (finalists) – WP:CHICAGO – WP:CHIFTD – WP:FOUR – WP:WAWARDS
My edit stats pages created
List of the Day/List of the Month
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
LOTMs2008 LOTDs: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting --~~~~ at the end.
1-(20May06-03Oct06) |
Trump Tower
Well, I would like to see some sources for this part: "Sitting on the north side of the Chicago River, parts of the building are visible from throughout the city, and the entire length of the building is visible from eastward Chicago River waterway traffic as well as locations to the east along the river, such as the mouth of Lake Michigan, the Lake Shore Drive Overpass, and the Columbus Drive Bridge. It is situated at a point along the main branch of the Chicago River where there is a brief change in direction that both gives the illusion that the River leads to the building and gives the building a clear line of view of the Lake Michigan mouth of the river." Zagalejo^^^ 23:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think I'm more worried about the sentence after that. I think I'm going to remove it, since I'm sure the illusion only works at specific locations. Zagalejo^^^ 20:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Let me go through the article one more time to see if there are any remaining problems. Zagalejo^^^ 20:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Re upon: I just think a sentence begins better with upon than on, and I changed that sentence around, so hopefully he won't have a complaint. Re twin: It's much better to say which World Trade Center (i.e. the one in New York City), rather than a simple unofficial descriptor. --Golbez (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Chicago Broadcasting History
DevorahLeah (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC) I am a media historian and although I am based in Boston, I have access to all sorts of accurate information about the men and women of Chicago radio and TV, including the women and minorities. I'm the author of 4 books and many essays and would be happy to share. Only problem is much of the research is not from sources that are readily available to the general public -- alas, Proquest only offers certain databases to colleges and businesses. These include many historical newspapers and magazines, and I have access to the information that way (I'm a professor and a professional researcher); but I realise that the average wikipedian might not have such access. Do you still want me to contribute, using the hard-copy newspaper dates and pages, even if it would mean readers have to go to the library to see the source material I used?
DevorahLeah (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I don't know if two important Chicagoans-- Jack L. Cooper, the first African-American announcer; or Halloween Martin, the first woman morning show host-- are part of the Chicago media project, but I have research on their lives, and can create or improve upon the biographical entries of many of the early Chicago radio broadcasters and stations. Is this something that would be useful to your project?
Would you object to me moving the present page to A More Perfect Union (disambiguation) and moving A More Perfect Union (speech) to A More Perfect Union? I think that most people who search for that phrase would be looking for the article about the speech. J.delanoygabsadds 00:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- I hate to bug you, but for some reason, I have had quite a few questions completely ignored recently... J.delanoygabsadds 01:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Clickthroughs? J.delanoygabsadds 01:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Re:
ping Terra 13:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:20080402 Trump Chicago at night.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:20080402 Trump Chicago at night.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
GA Millennium Park Pass review
Hi, TonyTheTiger. I have reviewed the article Millennium Park and after making some small changes I have up dated its status as a GA article, I left my GA comments on the talk page. It is great to see that you are so active on Wikipedia. I am not trying to get into your personal bussines, but I would love to know how you can edit so many articles? I hope I can help Wikipedia half as much as you have. I have to give you props on the University of Michigan work you have done, I go to Michigan State University but Grew up in Ann Arbor and I still like U of M football better. Anyway Great Work and you can now add one more GA icon to your list thing. Nice Work! Max ╦╩ (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- I will hook you up with a kill cool tiger for your user page gallery. Good Luck with getting Millennium Park to FA. I would be willing to work on some part, but I am taking summer classes at Michigan State University, so I do not have as much time as I would like. Max ╦╩ (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
FL's question
For List of tallest building articles, is it necessary that the list have a skyline of the city?--SRX--LatinoHeat 01:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Picture-taking in chicago
Thanks for the update. Neat that you could get so many. About fireworks at Grant Park (Chicago) tonight, can you possibly get any picture with fireworks and an NHL? Fireworks over the Field Museum? I myself am not set up to take any good pics of fireworks at all, and i can't find any 3rd of July fireworks near any NHL near me. I have been hoping to get any pics of fireworks and any NHL, to use in posting tomorrow a.m. Actually i was asking elsewhere whether any one would be able to take any such pic tonight. The NHLs by 4th of July, or bust, cleanup drive has gone really well, i am going to issue a report of sorts. If you happen to be able to do such, let me know, and/or post any such pic yourself to wt:NRHP tomorrow! Anyhow, i look forward to seeing those pics added to List of RHPs in Chicago, which i watch. Cheers, doncram (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Got ur followup too. I see ur previous post above, now, too, will respond. No problem, just have fun. By the way, i was mistaken about Field Museum being NHL, it is NRHP. Adler Planetarium is an NHL, and isn't it on the water, though i don't know if it is anywhere nearby. But again that was just a wild idea, not practical. Again, thanks. doncram (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Replied on my Talk page with some info -- at least some of buildings u ask about appear to be included in the Michigan-Wacker Historic District -- see report on my Talk page. doncram (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- See my further followup there, in fact I got to 11 page PDF scanned NRHP document with map showing exact district bounds, yes including the bridge and some properties north of the river. You should be able to get to the PDF, but if u cant email me and i can send it to you. doncram (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 27 | 30 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Fourth of July, or bust, Thanks!
The Fourth of July, or bust, Barnstar | ||
I award you this Barnstar for your solid, witty, creative, supportive, learned, timely, cheerful, eloquent, and/or otherwise generally great contributions on U. S. National Historic Landmarks' articles. Yippee o yay, we pretty much met our goal of a well-started article for each of 2,442 NHLs by today! Thanks, and have a great Fourth of July! -- Doncram, 4 July 2008 |
Thank you for developing, during the June 11 - July 4 drive, various articles on NHLs. It is great u refined article on NHL Chicago Board of Trade Building, and probably other NHLs, during this period. Also, your Featured List of Chicago Landmarks stands out as the salient model for all lists of NHLs, and has been an inspiration for me. Thanks for responding constructively to my horning in on Chicago-area stuff, with List of RHPs in Chicago, too. Cheers, doncram (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Image license
Image copyright problem with Image:20080622 St. Charles parade route sign.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:20080622 St. Charles parade route sign.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.
Ooops, looks like you forgot to add the license to that one. On the subject of your images, thank you for uploading so many excellent ones! Are you familiar with Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia's sister project for free media? Free licensed or public domain material can be uploaded there, then used in Wikipedia articles exactly as if you'd uploaded it directly here. Commons has additional advantages: images there can also be used in articles in the Wikipedias in other languages and other Wikimedia projects, and displayed in categories and galleries that make the images easier to find. In short, I encourge you to check out Commons, log in, and upload your free images there. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Gene Derricotte
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article [[[00:14] <SteveCrossin> Malinaccier: you has 0 FAs ]] you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Malinaccier (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've reviewed it. It's on hold. Malinaccier (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks, and well done to you as well! Cirt (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Michigan-Wacker Historic District DYK
Congratulations! --PeterSymonds (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:HAU, Status, and you!
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible) system - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 22:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Re:Topping out
A building is topped out when it has reached its final height, so in the case of Trump Tower the building will be topped out when the spire is added. Cheers, Rai•me 02:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Height of buildings in DC
I saw your notes on User:Raime's page and wondersed if there is any truth to the rumor that no building can be taller than the Washington Monument?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- I see you have other rules listed. Is the Washington Monument as tall as any building could possibly by according to the statutes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Technically, the rules state that height of any building is limited to the width of the adjacent street plus 20 feet (6 m), so a building facing a 90 feet (27 m) wide street could be no more than 110 feet (34 m). Theoretically, a street could be infinitely wide, but I don't know the practical limitations. I would guess you would never have a street that is 540 feet wide and therefore you could never have a building higher than the Washington Monument (unless they change the law). You can find the actual law here [1]. Cheers. Remember (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Do you know what the widest street in DC is?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Technically, the rules state that height of any building is limited to the width of the adjacent street plus 20 feet (6 m), so a building facing a 90 feet (27 m) wide street could be no more than 110 feet (34 m). Theoretically, a street could be infinitely wide, but I don't know the practical limitations. I would guess you would never have a street that is 540 feet wide and therefore you could never have a building higher than the Washington Monument (unless they change the law). You can find the actual law here [1]. Cheers. Remember (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Toni Preckwinkle
GA review comments awaiting your attention. Brianboulton (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Ft to m
I am forwarding this to Jimp, who re-designed the whole concept of {{ft to m}} a while ago and is now in better position to fix this problem. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Tony
A few things. Are you the Tony Vernon who plays online diplomacy? If so, I admire your style, and I believe you think my style sucks (I'm Dan Kindsvater), but then, I'm spending my time on Wikipedia these days, so perhaps I can redeem myself.
I've spent a lot of time working on and trying to understand Wikipedia's style guidelines, and I'm helping Tony1 with monthly summaries now. I'm generally respected around FAC; references on request. I'm always on the lookout for editors who can use my services in exchange for the chance to pick up some co-noms here and there. I respect Tony1, but I know that not everyone wants to write articles just the way he wants; as "your copyeditor", I would be taking your side and trying to help you pass FAC. (Obviously you don't need my help at GAN :). If you're interested, feel free to respond here. (P.S. I'm writing because of the current brouhaha over the Trump International Hotel and Tower article; I'm not sure if my help would make a difference with that one, but I can give it a shot.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll give it a copyedit. Be aware that I may change things that it's not absolutely clear need changing; that's one way to deal with 1a objections, and you've got a few. What's going on with delinking dates is that several of the style guidelines editors have run out of patience. The original bargain that resulted in WP editors having to enter a lot of extra keystrokes just so that people can see dates in their own formats is wearing thin; the devs were supposed to have implemented that in software a long time ago. Within the last month, the guideline has been changed to say that you can add links to dates or not (that wouldn't otherwise be linked because of relevance), but Tony1 in particular is pushing people to lean towards "not", in part because we've been waiting a long time, and in part, I think, because he hopes that if we stop compensating for lack of action by the devs, there will be more pressure on them to do something. This is just a guess. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll start leaving some notes on the FAC page; there are a lot of judgment calls. A vigorous copyediting discussion helps improve the mood at FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm seeing a lot of things that I usually change in a copyedit; feel free to revert any of my edits, especially if I don't know what I'm talking about, or pull the plug on me at any time by leaving a message on my talk page or shooting me an email. Feel free to check out my level of clue by looking at the reaction to, say, my last 4 copyedits. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, still on it, that was suppertime. FAC people really like active voice; I will try to slide it in in a few places. Is it fair to say that Adrian Smith did the planning as well as the designing, or did he do the designing during the planning phase? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm seeing a lot of things that I usually change in a copyedit; feel free to revert any of my edits, especially if I don't know what I'm talking about, or pull the plug on me at any time by leaving a message on my talk page or shooting me an email. Feel free to check out my level of clue by looking at the reaction to, say, my last 4 copyedits. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll start leaving some notes on the FAC page; there are a lot of judgment calls. A vigorous copyediting discussion helps improve the mood at FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
[copied from my talk page to keep the conversation in one place - Dank55]
- I get passive sometimes. Help is appreciated. I do not know architecture well enough to respond to your query, but everything is well sourced if you have the time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I do. I hear "being constructed by X" all the time, but I don't recall hearing "X is constructing..."; any ideas on how to get that into active voice? Have you heard "X is constructing"? It's not in any of my style guides. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- X is building. I am going to be offline for about a half hour.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I do. I hear "being constructed by X" all the time, but I don't recall hearing "X is constructing..."; any ideas on how to get that into active voice? Have you heard "X is constructing"? It's not in any of my style guides. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I get passive sometimes. Help is appreciated. I do not know architecture well enough to respond to your query, but everything is well sourced if you have the time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Any reaction so far, anything you want me to do less or more of? I'm working for you, to get the article through FAC, I am not a reviewer. Can you check on Riverwalk? Every Google hit obviously came from a Wikipedia article, and the source listed everything in the brochure with caps and ampersands, whether they needed it or not. Is there another source that Google hasn't picked up? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
[copied from my talk page - Dank55] Do you want to make the first sentence in the second paragraph active? Do you have an opinion of the diagram image. Should I revert to the small letters that look more professional? I would bet that if this article were to make the main page, Apprentice would be relinked. I had it linked under WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - references to a page with more information:--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Since you are a captive audience, I will ask you to comment on the images on the talk page in the second to last section. I need an opinion on their prospective inclusion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- I thought you made a good argument for why the pictures were probably taken without permission. That section of the tower isn't open yet, and we are of course dealing with a developer who likes to sue people. Having said that, I'm pretty much an idiot on all aspects of images, so I don't have an answer for this or for your question on the diagram image. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
There were 4 or 5 sources on the Trump children, but none of the sources asserted a connection with the Chicago Trump Tower, except that one of the sources said that they were selling apartments. Their position in the company is certainly notable in some article, but the connection isn't nearly strong enough for this article (unless you have other sources), and Matisse was having a bad reaction to what seemed to her to be an unearned mention of the kids. I deleted those 3 sentences, but if you've got more sources, I'll be happy to look again. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 05:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand "A new chemical process that leverages more fluid liquid concrete facilitates pumping concrete up several hundred feet to the elevating construction site." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 05:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm about ready to fall asleep so I'll just pass along the last couple of things to do: "4-foot (1.2 m)-wide" doesn't work. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 05:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm done. I'll look over it again tomorrow afternoon after you've had a chance to look at the diffs. Feel free to revert anything, of course. Think about switching the order of the last two sections. Also, I'm not sure if the material on that guy from The Apprentice was in the right place.
- There were three problems, big ones, with the bar and spa sections. 1. Your FAC won't pass with either of them in there. 2. It's the kind of material that makes most Wikipedians think "promotional", whether that is the case or not, and 3. The sources didn't even establish that they were interesting, much less notable. The source that liked the sushi was the kind of source that will review bars one day and hot dog stands the next, and there was no connection established in the sources between that spa and any notable business or person. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 05:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm about ready to fall asleep so I'll just pass along the last couple of things to do: "4-foot (1.2 m)-wide" doesn't work. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 05:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
←Tony, I have some ideas for how to make progress at FAC, and I don't like to lose at FAC, but it could take up to a week.
- I'm working now on seeing what we can do about the kids.
- Briefly, on my first point, "least astonishment", it's a little easier than you make it out to be. We don't have to guess what a reader might want to read about; all we need is to ask some appropriate random survey of Wikipedians to read the article, and tell us when they're done which information they wanted more of and which they wanted less of. I have used the WP:GAN list in the past as a handy source of Wikipedians who have some level of clue but who are likely to reflect a wide set of viewpoints on just about any issue; could we take a few days to run your article by a bunch of people and see what they say?
- On my second point, the people who hang out at WP:AfD have a very finely-tuned sense of smell; that is, they are very open to allowing material that seems a little promotional, but they know how to massage it to keep a wide cross-section of Wikipedians happy with it. Could we submit your article on the talk page over there and ask them what they would do tend to do with that section?
- On my third point, I have asked several friends to look in architectural magazines and online to get a sense the importance of bars and spas to the financial health of hotels.
- I think there is a disconnect. There is no statement that the bar are spa are important architecturally. The talk page of this article has four projects for which it has some significance. I would say that although these two businesses are not notable to WP:WPARCH, or WP:SKY, they are notable for concerns of WP:CHICAGO and WP:ILLINOIS. The building will be a tourist attraction of sorts due to its views and association with Trump. As a tourist attraction what lures people? From the WP:CHICAGO perspective nat WP:ILLINOIS perspective they are important concerns. The bar is insignifcant to the success of the hotel. There is no statement that either business is important to the financial health of the hotel. There is merely a statement that these businesses have been detailed on the public record.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know how long it will take us to get answers, and what Sandy said yesterday suggests to me that she's going to pull the plug immediately unless she sees progress towards a solution. Would you be willing to pull the bar and spa sections to get through FAC, on my promise that I will help you gather support from Wikipedians as detailed above to re-instate whatever we can, not just in your article, but in APARK and similar articles? - Dan Dank55 (talk(mistakes) 21:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I would not be willing to remove the spa information even if it is an anchor for the FAC. The business accounts for two whole floors of the building one of which has 53 dedicated rooms. I could not in good conscience propose that this article passes WP:WIAFA 1b without spa information. The only two people that I recognize as affiliated with WP:CHICAGO that have voted are Chupper and Zagalejo. Loggie has worked with us copyediting all articles at WP:CHIFTD and commented on this discussion. Thus, I would propose that we seek the majority opinion of these three persons on the editorial content of those two subsection.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. On the third point, there are many ways to get a sense that those things are important; maybe just asking around would work. On the first two points, the options are more limited. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
Okay, just got back, I'll get to work. Please find any new sources about the spa you can. Can I delete two-thirds of the material on the bar and merge the rest into the restaurant section? I will start trying to get support for keeping some of the spa material, more soon. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- First step: WT:AFD#Opinion on article at FAC. You asked if my claim about OR meant that you are making up facts: not at all. OR includes drawing a stated or implied conclusion from the facts not present in the sources, and I don't think the sources support the conclusion that the spa is interesting, yet...they support the idea that it could become interesting. An example: sometimes in hotels, the floors that have laundry rooms are more popular than floors without. That doesn't mean we should write about the laundry rooms in Wikipedia, it just means people have a slight preference to be on those floors. Even if people have been a little quicker to buy condos on the same level as the spa, that doesn't really make the spa any more interesting than the laundry room. Several things might get me interested in the spa, such as some source talking about how many people go there, or evidence that advertising the spa has been a major thrust of promotion for the hotel, or a clear connection to a notable spa somewhere. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Copied from my talk:
- I have proposed a fair jury of content for the two sections (bar and spa) on my talk page. How do you propose that we present the debate? I would even allow the Trump kids section to be presented.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
DYK
--Gatoclass (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Streeterville
Hi Tony. Just wanted to let you know that I've reviewed Streeterville and left comments on the GA page. Best, epicAdam (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Re:List of tallest buildings in Chicago
Both of those buildings are a part of the Illinois Center complex, and the standard is to redirect buildings in a development to a single article about the development; in this case, Illinois Center is the article. Cheers, Rai•me 01:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- The Illinois Center article begins with "Illinois Center is a mixed-use urban development" and then has a list of buildings that are contained in the development, so to me its seems much more about the complex/development. Cheers, Rai•me 12:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 28 | 7 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Co-noms
Tony, it's a little easier for me (for going back and reading things in the future) to keep things on one talk page or the other, and I have no preference: your place or mine. I'll copy this over since we've been talking on your page, but we can flip to my page any time, if you want to keep my page watchlisted.
- [copied from my my userpage] Before the month is out we will begin proposing WP:CHIFTD. You could co-nom Crown Fountain and then eventually Millennium Park, and BP Pedestrian Bridge.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm seriously considering it, but first consider that you may not want to work with me (except in the context we just did, where I'm jumping in at the end). If I do a copyedit before or at the start of FAC, I want for people to assume that means it's okay, and they often do. So I don't have the freedom that a lot of writers do to push for things that might be a little dodgy at FAC. Also, what I like about FAC is the social contract to do what's quote-unquote "best" instead of what's good enough for GA, not because I particularly care what's best, but because it's so much less of a hassle to get consensus on what's best than on what's okay. It can speed up the process dramatically.
So: while I've still got Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) fresh in my mind, let's figure out if I should be involved as a co-nom in two weeks. I can back anything that we can get support for before we head back. I appreciate how patient you were with me and some of your critics. I think we can talk about the bar and the spa, but if more people have the reaction at WT:AFD#Opinion on article at FAC that there are WP:UNDUE issues, then I can only help out if they're rewritten so that people in general don't think that that's a concern. I'd really like to get these things nailed down so that the issues are settled for the next 100 FAs on buildings, APARKs, etc. I think a quick random survey along the lines of "read this, what do you want more of and what do you want less of?" will be very helpful in shooting down opposition at FAC: they love it when people do their homework. I'll go run a quick survey. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, here's the survey: WT:FAC#Commercial properties. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Tony, as I beat you over the head with during the FAC, I didn't much care for the sources on the bar. I don't object to the bar per se, and in fact, the fact that you can see the bar from the lobby means to me we can easily justify mentioning it, because it's well established that Wikipedians are interested in knowing what a visitor can see when they're standing in a "notable" location, and I'd say the mezzanine counts as the lobby area, and the lobby is clearly a notable location. So: I'd be perfectly happy with describing what you can see in the bar when you're standing outside it looking in. Can you find any other sources on the bar? I just don't think we can say anything about the quality of the bar with those sources. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- To answer another question, after a couple minutes of thought I believe the time is right for me to recommend delinking full dates; there has been no serious challenge to Tony1's push in this direction on style guidelines pages. In an American English article, the dates would be in the American format. We are really feeling disappointed in the devs on this one, and it's time to revolt and put the ball back in their court to implement configurable date formats in the software, or not. All those blue links just draw attention away from the important links, and there are other reasons discussed on style guidelines pages. As a bonus, this will make several people at FAC very happy. I will delink all the dates in one edit, and you're free to revert if you feel the relevant wikiprojects won't go along with this one. I'll be happy to make the case to them. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- In reply to the latest additions on my talk page: I'm not at all opposed to having the list of tallest buildings in Chicago in the article, we just need to find the right place for it. That particular sentence was not the right place; it would be like saying "Yao Ming is the tallest NBA basketball player, and also the tallest NBA player in Houston"......one implies the other, and in fact, saying both weakens the impact of the first. On the other point, do include United States in your list of things to ask your panel, but this concerns an issue that comes up in every article and every FAC, so the next FAC reviewers are likely not to care what your panel thinks about this, there's such a firm consensus already. Your panel and my two surveys can help a lot, I think, on issues related to articles about buildings. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Have there been other FACs delinking full dates? Excellent question. Tony1 is busy until tomorrow night, I'll ask him. If not, then I totally understand if you guys don't want to be the first. Perhaps our position could be, "we'll do it when other people at FAC do it". That would probably be sufficient. I'll hold off on de-linking dates. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Got a partial answer for you. For the Trump Tower article, I think the number of links has been going down and is acceptable, and we shouldn't need to delink dates to get it to fly. However, if people are still unhappy with the links in two weeks, then I think we should delink the dates. See User_talk:Tony1#nbsp_in_non-autolinked_dates. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: Image CSDed without notice
At the help desk, I have been informed you speedied an image. My talk page has no notice.
Supposedly This is from the deletion log: "23:44, 13 July 2008 Melesse (Talk | contribs | block) deleted 'Image:Trump Chicago floor diagram.JPG' (Speedy deleted per (CSD I7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago. using TW)."
At Wikipedia:Help_desk#deleted_image, I noted that I would like to either recreate the image or have you restore it. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- User:Kelly was the one to place the notice, take it up with her why you didn't get a notification. The picture was a diagram that could be very easily described in text (e.g. The lobby and terrace are for retail, 14 and 14g are a health club and spa, etc.) and be just as easy to understand. When that's the case, you must use text and not an image. Melesse (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for prompt reply. Are you saying there is no possible way I could have fixed the FUR and that no such diagrams are allowed on WP even with FUR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be some sort of disconnect at WP:GL. They seem to think a diagram can not be made Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#Trump_International_Hotel_and_Tower_.28Chicago.29_floor_diagram. If it can not be recreated fair use is allowable. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, fair use of that image is not allowable, and I don't think they were saying that. As someone suggested, you could label a profile shot of the building, or as I said before, you could just write out in text what each floor is allocated for. Melesse (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I fail to understand why a fair use rationale could not be used. It is not possible for a person to conceptualize the 10 or so different floor uses orally. It is necessary for the understanding of the reader to have a diagram. In fact, this diagram was originally a talk page request because text is too confusing. A FUR is easy to write and the image would pass any reasonable FUR analysis due to the complexity of the building.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well I fail to see what's so complicated or hard to understand about doing it with text.
- 86-89: Penthouses
- 29-85: Residential Condominiums
- 17-27M: Hotel Condominiums
- 27: Hotel & Conference Center
- 16: Restaurant, Ballroom & Banquet
- 14 & 14M: Health Club & Spa
- 3-12: Parking
- Ground: Lobby & Retail
- Terrace: Retail
- ^ That makes perfect sense to me, no picture necessary. Melesse (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well I fail to see what's so complicated or hard to understand about doing it with text.
- I fail to understand why a fair use rationale could not be used. It is not possible for a person to conceptualize the 10 or so different floor uses orally. It is necessary for the understanding of the reader to have a diagram. In fact, this diagram was originally a talk page request because text is too confusing. A FUR is easy to write and the image would pass any reasonable FUR analysis due to the complexity of the building.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, you are smarter than most, because a diagram was requested for clarification. Who are we to say what others can conceptualize. The image is for those readers with lesser conceptualization skills than you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the article, has a similar such text description failed before? Why don't you try using it before presuming that some people won't be able to understand it?
- That would in the abstract be a good idea. However, floor-by-floor descriptions are uncommon. I have don't recall having ever seen one in an architectural article although I may be mistaken. With this in mind and the philosophy that a picture is worth a thousand words, the editors have requested a diagram. No one has requested a paragraph with further detail than what is currently in the text ("The design of the building includes, in order from the ground up, retail space, a parking garage, a hotel, and condominiums."). The diagram request formerly existed despite this text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It only conveys part of the information because it does not depict the building to scale in any way that helps the reader in a unified way with the image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Alright then, I personally don't know how to do that with wiki markup (which would be preferable), but I do know how to do it in Excel. You could make a table with some proportional cells, displaying the same data to the scale of the building. Or you could ask the graphics lab to make a graphic of that. If they think that's a copyvio then they're being silly, feel free to send them to me to talk about it. Melesse (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)