Talk:One Times Square

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the One Times Square article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

One Times Square 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 7, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

New York City Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skyscrapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WSJ, Slashdot stories[edit]

The ads earn ~$25 million a year, and 100 million pedestrians pass through the site every year. Some people wonder how the ads could justify the expense.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323476304578199310470733342.html

http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/12/27/2318202/empty-times-square-building-generates-23-million-a-year-from-digital-ads

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:One Times Square/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 19:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to this soon. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History

"(The paper has since moved to The New York Times Building on nearby Eighth Avenue.)" Try to mix this into the prose; as it is, it looks awkward.
"At first it displayed major news headlines.." A comma after "first" is missing
"(announcing such major events as the surrender of Japan and the assassination of John F. Kennedy)" I believe that this is useless here.
"Newsday declined" Newsday was italicized previously, but not here.
"and also upgraded it to use more modern" the "also" here is not needed
"However, Dow Jones and Company stepped in to save the ticker," when? the same year? a year later?
"The Times sold the building to advertising executive and sign designer Douglas Leigh in 1961." At the end of the previous paragraph, you jump to 1963 and then to 1994. Then, here, you go back to 1961; if those are different ideas, it is okay, but I believe you should keep a timeline and not be jumping back and forth in time.
"Leigh then sold the building to Allied Chemical in 1963." You stated above that it was sold to Allied Chemical and it is implicit that it was The Times. Now this states that the Times sold it to Douglas Leigh and he then sold it to Allied Chemical. Try to make this clear in the previous paragraph and merge this info so that you don't repeat it.

I've revised all of the relevant portions here. ViperSnake151 Talk 06:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue the review this weekend. Sorry for taking a bit long, RL issues keep me busy in weekdays. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In terms of coverage, would be great to have one paragraph in the article providing slightly more info about the architecture, such as the width of the Times Square facing facade, internal layout, vertical circulation, etc --ELEKHH^T 06:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From building to billboard

"Lehman Brothers sold One Times Square again" This means that the Lehman Brothers sold the building more than once, which seems to be incorrect.
"In filings surrounding the sale of the tower to Jamestown" I think that related is a better word than surrounding here
"(with a yearly average of over 100 million pedestrians—alongside its prominence in media coverage of New Year's festivities, which organizers estimate at being around 1 billion)" This claim needs a citation after the ")"
"Despite advertising becoming its primary use" --> "Despite being primarily used for advertising" to avoid tense issues.
"has still housed" still is unnecessary
"the area was home" what does "the area" mean here? the same three floors WB used?

— ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did some adjustments. That entire sentence containing the "with a yearly average of over 100 million pedestrians—alongside its prominence in media coverage of New Year's festivities, which organizers estimate at being around 1 billion)" is also sourced by the WSJ article. ViperSnake151 Talk 04:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I think I am ready to pass now. I'd recommend taking the article to peer review if you plan to take this to FAC. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Some sources are missing author and date. Feel free to add them if you read them. I will restore broken or dead links myself. Doblecaña (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on One Times Square. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170928200946/https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170928/times-square-theater-district/one-times-square-museum-observatory to https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170928/times-square-theater-district/one-times-square-museum-observatory

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality status degraded[edit]

This article needs some attention re: the Good Article criteria. It's unclear from the lede who owns the building and what was housed there before it went vacant. The Lehman Brothers segment is shoved into the Billboards section rather than explained in the building history Sales section. And then it devolves into proseline for the final paragraphs. Overall needs some massaging to qualify as "well written" for GA purposes and a section on Construction/Design for breadth purposes. Posting here for feedback but otherwise looks like the article is due for WP:GAR. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have rearranged this article a bit, but it still needs a design section. From looking at the version that was promoted, it looks like there never was a design section to begin with. There is not too much info on construction and the Times' ownership, either, but I think that could be remedied relatively easily. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an architecture section and greatly expanded the history section with additional details. From the looks of it, this article might need a GAR anyway - not because it no longer meets the criteria, but because the current version of this article differs so greatly from the version that was promoted. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Original zipper ("Motograph News Bulletin")[edit]

While all the publicity of the Mark I zipper (1928-1963) claimed it was 14,800 bulbs, technically based on the measurements of the building frontage it couldn't have been. Photos taken in daytime during World War II on the 43rd Street side showed a total of 720 bulbs, or an average of 60 per row (the Mark I zipper was 12 rows high), which is significant given that that side of the building was 20' from end to end. By this calculation, the Broadway side (143' to the east) would have been 5,148 bulbs (average 429 per row), the 42nd Street side (58' 4-1/8" to the south) roughly 2,103 bulbs (average >175 per row) and the Seventh Avenue side (137' 11-3/4" to the west) approximately 4,965 bulbs (average <414 per row). Which would amount to about 12,936 bulbs total. The bulbs were generally separated by 4" from left to right, and 4.5" from top to bottom, slanted at about an angle of 9 - 9.5 degrees.

The other factor was in how many characters were on each side at one time, as seen in old photos. Each character was spaced about 12.5 bulbs apart (50"), thus 4.8 characters on the 43rd Street side, 34.32 on the Broadway side, 14 on the 42nd Street side and 33.12 on the Seventh Avenue side.

To be sure, it was a remarkable achievement in terms of its construction and installation, and certainly not chicken feed, but not nearly as much as the publicity said. —Wbwn (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]