This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
New York 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 (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
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
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
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
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to split into three articles.
WikiRedactor (
talk) 21:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Does it make sense to split this article into two pages for the old and new buildings respectively?
74.64.122.27 (
talk) 15:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Pretty sure that would be the best thing to do, since the new building is arguably more significant and I think a combination article would be quite long once the new building is finished. --
Galebazz (
talk) 18:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes, I think we should split this page. Actually, I believe we should split this page into three: Hotel Marguery, what was originally the Union Carbide Building, and the new JPMorgan headquarters. The hotel is not relevant to the other two topics aside from the fact that it occupies the same site. The Union Carbide Building similarly has a distinct history and architecture from the new tower, and that is the topic of the interwiki links, so that building should remain the topic for the present article. The new headquarters should be split into another article. The only issue is what to name the page about the new headquarters, since we cannot have two articles with the same name, unless the Union Carbide article is called "270 Park Avenue (1960–2019)" or something.
Epicgenius (
talk) 00:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Agree on split into three. While the hotel article might be a stub at first, it will certainly encourage more edits on that article than as part of a subsection (see:
Meta:structuralism). Pinging
Galebazz due to consensus. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)reply
just realized I pinged the wrong person due to not seeing the IP. My bad. Sorry Galebazz! I'll split myself. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Actually I'll wait to see what they have to say about the 3-way split. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)reply
No worries about the ping! If you wanted to hear my opinion on the split in to three, I think it is a good idea.
Galebazz (
talk) 10:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I like the idea of a three way split too. Just need to make sure they have helpful hatnotes and that someone checks all the incoming links once it's done.
81.177.27.61 (
talk) 18:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"The Union Carbide Building received mixed criticism during its existence." Don't you mean "mixed reception" -- i.e. some praise and some criticism? "Mixed criticism" means various kinds of criticism.
Suggest redlinking
General Bronze; I get 93 hits in the NYT alone.
"The site of the plaza was supposed to be part of a northward extension of Vanderbilt Avenue to 49th Street, which the New York Central Railroad had built in 1913 but never deeded to the government of New York City": what had the railroad built in 1913? As written this says it was 49th Street, but that can't be right.
"Since there were only six platforms on the upper level that extended to 47th Street." Incomplete sentence.
Thanks for the comments @
Mike Christie. I have addressed all of these issues now:
I removed the image.
I changed "mixed criticism" to "mixed reception". I was thinking of two things at once at the time: "criticism" and "mixed commentary", and I combined them.
The red link has been added.
I clarified that this refers to Vanderbilt Avenue.
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
QPQ: - Not done Overall: Another great article in this significant and ongoing series by Epicgenius. ALT 2 is more hooky IMO.
No Swan So Fine (
talk) 14:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)reply