Talk:New York Times Building (41 Park Row)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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.

The result was: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times Building at 41 Park Row
The New York Times Building at 41 Park Row

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 18:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Incredibly deeply researched article, length and date requirements are met. Article is free of copyvio and images are free to use. Interesting hook that is correctly cited from source. QPQ done. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Would "Former New York Times Building" be a better/less ambiguous title for this building, per its designation? It's easy to confuse "New York Times Building (41 Park Row)" with other Times Buildings, even with the parenthetical disambiguation, especially when the Times hasn't been there in so long. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, I considered that. However, the issue is that there are at least two other former NYT buildings with articles (229 West 43rd Street and One Times Square).
Another option, and my preference, would be to revert to the 41 Park Row title. I believe the page is at the current title because the building is listed as a historic landmark with the name "New York Times Building". On the other hand, 41 Park Row is the current address and is unambiguous; furthermore, this is the address used by Pace University. Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous buildings[edit]

I find the "Previous buildings" section hard to follow. The second paragraph especially is out of chronological order. While discussing the building begun in 1857, it mentions 21-century critics' opinion of the 1851 building. (Or is that an error of some sort?) That switch means it took me a while to figure out for sure which building was being described in the following sentences. After that, we read about what happened in 1881, followed by 1873, then 1882.

I found the quote from Harper's Weekly, the comparison to the Tribune, and the description of the Times' reputation to be distracting in a discussion of the buildings.

Is the identity of Wesley, Keep, James, Raymond, Jones, and Raymond significant enough to include here in a discussion of buildings? There's a lot of information in here! 75.58.160.64 (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overhead lighting?[edit]

I recently saw a picture of the building circa 1900 with the pedestrian entrance to the Brooklyn Bridge in the foreground and was intrigued by the overhead interior lighting visible on the upper floors. Since flourescent lighting was not introduced until 1934, wondering what that was? 173.27.82.92 (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]