Talk:One Madison

"Four-star restaurant"

Who has awarded the restaurant four stars? Otherwise "four-star" simply means "expensive and pretentious".--Wetman (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. I don't remember where the "four-star" came from originally, probably the publicity material, and I took it at the time as being not a rating per se, but an expression of the expectation of a certain quality. A restaurant of that caliber in that area, which was basically making the transition from a fast-food strip inro a mixed-quality strip, but had (and has) no high-quality restaurants (although there are certainly a lot of them with a few blocks of the building in the Flatiron District), was unusual, hence its inclusion. I'll remove "4-star" though, especially because it's now an open question whether anything like that will ever emerge. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Height of One Madison Park and Metropolitan Life Insurance Tower

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)

Good point. All I can think is that whoever was making the comparison was using a different standard for "height" than that which arrives at 700 ft. for the Met Tower -- but since the link which supports that statement is now available only to registered users, and I'm not registered at the moment (but hopefully will be soon), I can't check it. I'll do some looking around, but I'l comment out the statement in the meantime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've done a fair amount of searching and I cannot confirm in any way the 614/617 thing. The original source appears to no longer be available, and no other source that I consulted supported the contention, so I've removed that statement from the article entirely (instead of just commenting it out), and will do the same to the Madison Square article shortly.

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)

Updates

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)

• Add Yabu Pushelberg to "Other Designers" in info box
• Last sentence of intro paragraph to read: "The building's main lobby and address will be at 23 East 22nd Street when construction of the lobby building is complete."
• History edits:

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]

• Add new section:

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)

Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest, it is appreciated. Just one note: in the future please "sign" your comment by edning it with 4 tildes (i.e. ~~~~) which will automatiucally add your account name and a date/timestamp.

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)

•  Done I believe I have included most, if not all, of the changes you suggested, although not always with the exact wording, and not necessarily in the same order or place. I've also included additional information from the September 12th article in the Times. thank you for bringing it to our attention.

  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)

• Thank you. Just one more thing - the last line of the History section should be edited to say "Sales resumed in 2013" as opposed to the forward-looking statement that is currently there ("...are expected to launch sales in early 2013"). NinaSpezz (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 31 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)

Also, my apologies for dealing with you as if you were a newbie. I just looked at your contribution list, and saw that you've been around for a while - I should have looked earlier. Sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• No worries! Thank you again for working with me on this. I really appreciate your help and kind words. NinaSpezz (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Has the building closed down?

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)

What do you mean "closed down"? It's a residential building, not a business. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing on Google about it being closed. Remember that people can add info to Google Maps. I'll send in a correction and see what happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything on Google Maps about the building being closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

unexplained reversion - linking Fredrik Eklund and minor changes to that sentence

@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)

The fact that he's the author of a book is more of a reason to be notable than being a "reality TV star", which is sort of the lowest form of celebrity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The book isn't in the reference, but his role on the show is. I'm not a reality TV fan, but the fact is the main reason why Eklund is notable is the show. Why did you remove the link to his name? - Paul^T+/_C 03:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I've restored, but kept the book in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The book is unsourced, so I added the {{fact}} template. FYI, I also did a review of the article and made some small changes in a few places. If you have issues with some of the changes can we discus them individually without a wholesale reversion this time, please? - Paul^T+/_C 04:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Make the edits indiviudually. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to go through each bitty change you make in a collective edit just so I can save some and delete others. Make your edits one by one, or collect them together by type and I'll deal with each separately, bnut as long as you keep bunching them all together, I'm going to evaluate the edit by it's collective worth, so some potentially good changes are going to be lost if I revert.

Don't change the format of small horizontal lines, they've been chosen for a specific reas.

Don't tagbomb the article because you don't understand something, post here and ask. If a consensus agrees that the tag is needed, then you can add it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, while I obviously do not WP:OWN the article, I am the author of 51.4% of it, [7] so I do have a vested interest in protecting the article from edits which I feel do not improve it. It's really going to be to your advantage for us to cooperate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox capitalization

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):

• Type - condominium
• Landlord - consortium of creditors
• Structural system - highrise

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)

Capital letters are needed for the beginnings of sentences and for proper nouns. They are not required in any other circumstances. These are not section headers or sentences, they are simply information in a parameter field, nothing more, and capital letter are not needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It goes against existing convention and they are similar to headings. I don't want to veer too far into WP:OSE, but a quick survey of similar buildings in Category:Residential skyscrapers in Manhattan shows these kinds of words to be consistently capitalized:

• 432 Park Ave: Status - Complete; Type - Residences; Construction started - Foundation / Aboveground structure;
• One57: Status - Complete; Type - Residences;
• The Majestic (New York City): Type - Co-op; Structural system - Skyscraper;

And I'll quote the footnote at the Manual of Style/Capital letters that makes the point explicitly about infoboxes:

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.

 - Paul^T+/_C 04:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

They are not in any way, shape or form "similar to headings". They are information.

The MoS is not mandatory. See the top of any MoS page.

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No, the MoS is not mandatory. But if you want an exception, there needs to be a reason to contradict these guidelines. From the top of the MoS page, as you referenced:

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.

You are referring to "treated with common sense and occasional exceptions", right? What is your rationale for an exception for using sentence case for entries in infoboxes, as described by the guidelines (which explicitly mention your point about not technically being the start of a sentence or a heading)? To me, it is common sense that the infobox should be similar to the other infoboxes for similar buildings. I know WP:OSE, but WP:SSEFAR also. - Paul^T+/_C 05:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Since it's not a place where capitals are required, common sense says not to use capitals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Except that it is "required" (per the guideline): 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)

Nope, it's just MoS, and therefore not required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You are spinning this into a circle. No, the MoS is not required BUT with this caveat: 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)

Sorry, but you are attempting to make what is not mandatory into a requirement. No matter how hard you try, you cannot do that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:14, 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 section break

I went with Wikipedia:Third opinion. Is "Disagreement about infobox formatting - namely capitalizing the first letter of words in the infobox." an acceptable, neutral description of the discussion so far? - Paul^T+/_C 20:52, 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.

Thanks for your input Reidgreg. I appreciate the fresh look and slightly different approach. @Beyond My Ken, what do you think? - Paul^T+/_C 16:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It has been over 24 hours and you edited this page after Reidgreg posted his opinion but haven't weighed in on the issue. Can I take your WP:SILENCE as the weakest form of consensus? I understand that you are not obligated to respond at all, but it would be nice - especially if you disagree and plan to revert if I implement the change. I'd rather not have that outcome if possible. Regardless, assuming you don't respond here I won't implement the change until at least sometime next week. Fair notice? - Paul^T+/_C 07:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus. The 3O is absolutely wrong. Unless a word is the beginning of a sentence, or a proper noun, there is no need or requirement to capitalize it. MOS is a guideline only, and is not mandatory, and cannot be enforced as such. Enforcing MOS an mandatory turns it into policy, without having the community approve it as a policy.

So, no, I do not agree, and as the author of 49.9% of the article, significantly more than any other editor, my wishes should be recognized and not ignored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting the MoS is a mandatory policy or turning it into that. Exceptions to the MoS can and do happen all the time; it is just that this isn't one of those cases. I'm open to hearing other arguments for why you think that is the case.

You wrote: 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)

• @Psantora: I'm not sure why anyone is waiting on me. I've made my views clear and haven't changed them - nothing said here has convinced me to do so. But you really don't need me to agree, from what I see you've got a consensus to make the change you want. I still believe it's unnecessary, but, hey, the world's far from perfect. Besides, I'm already getting reamed out on AN/I as a selfish, pigheaded, immoral bastard who deliberately screws up accessibility and probably hates differently-abled people, so I'm hardly in a position to do anything drastic right now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Well that is certainly an understatement (re: perfection)!
  I appreciate your agreeing that there is consensus (albeit that you disagree with), because in your last reply you made it pretty clear that you thought there was none. In particular, I don't want to give the impression that your view is being ignored, because it wasn't and isn't. I will make the change shortly. - Paul^T+/_C 07:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Re: that last bit you added (not sure how you did that as it did not show up when I replied initially...). That is not acceptable and if you are getting messages to that effect please point me to them. When I saw your question about how *exactly* the screen reader worked I felt like a complete idiot because if it was as simple as explaining the mechanism to you all along I would have been happy to do it last year at Cobble Hill, Brooklyn. I suspect you might have ignored it, but at least the information would have been out there for you in case you didn't. I'm sorry you are getting completely unwarranted harassment. - Paul^T+/_C 08:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • More 3O: Wikipedia policies describe what is absolutely essential for the organization to function. Guidelines are what are needed for it to function smoothly. It is true that it is not absolutely needed to follow guidelines. However, when all things are equal – i.e.: when there is no substantive reason not to – guidelines should be followed. Guidelines represent an existing consensus. Arbitrarily deviating from guidelines is not defendable. It may initially be excusable as there are myriad guidelines and no volunteer editor can be familiar with them all while making bold edits. But when an edit is contested and a guideline is pointed out, the guideline should not be willfully ignored. I appreciate the productive edits on the article and MOS:RETAIN allows for keeping established valid styles of the article like mdy dates and American English. However, the only acceptable style here is for an initial capital. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, but you are incorrect, policies are what Wikipedia absolutely needs to function. If guidelines were absolutely necessary, they wouldn't be "guidelines" they would be policies. Please don't read your own (quite inaccurate) interpretation into what the guidelines say about themselves, that they are subject to common sense variations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Standard date formats

There is a mix of three date formats throughout this article

• Month Day, Year
• Day Month Year
• YYYY-MM-DD

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)

• mdy dates appear to be the established style from this revision in 2010, though I strangely can't seem to find the diff where "April 15" was added. All things being equal, I'd probably stick with mdy per MOS:RETAIN. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• The article is about an American subject, written in American English, so the dates should all be American style: MD, Y. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Paul^T+/_C 16:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Entrance

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)

P.S. Very clever rewrite on the caption. Kudos. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Also note that the building's name went from the "Saya" to "One Madison Park", not "One Madison Avenue". In any case, it was, and is, a name, not an address. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

To construc the building to the height they did, they purchased the air rights from the McDonald's which was there, and part of the deal was that there would be a McDonald's in the 23rd Street frontage, and (this is speculation on my part), I'm sure they didn't want the entrance to their extremely expensive building to be next to a McDonald's. In addition, 22nd Street is a much quieter and more sedate street. The tower built just down the street a few years later did the same thing -- entrance on 22nd Street. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)