Talk:Tower 42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject London (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Architecture (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skyscrapers (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

2nd tallest building?[edit]

The BT Tower, Shard, One Canada Square and more are taller than Tower 42. So reference to 2nd tallest building in London should be removed as inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.159.62 (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The "City of London" is a small part of "London", geographically. The BT Tower, Shard and One Canada Square are not in the City. cmɢʟee 19:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Dubious[edit]

The GLC was abolished in 1986, so an event in 1996 could not prompt it to do anything. Perhaps it was the City Corporation that changed planning guidance? MRSC (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

[edit]

I seem to have wandered into a dispute with another editor on the old chestnut as to whether the building's plan is, or is not, based on the NatWest logo. So, trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines, let me summarise the position here on the talk page as I see it. (1) Architect Richard Seifert always denied that he based the building design on the NatWest logo. There are ample citations for this.
(2) Whether Seifert is right or wrong, it is a fact that designs for the NatWest Tower were being developed as early as the mid 1960s (then as a new headquarters for the former National Provincial Bank) whereas the creation of National Westminster Bank, (though announced in 1968) did not take effect until 1970, when the new logo first appeared. The question of which came first is therefore, at the very least, debatable. There are also ample citations that acknowledge the issue is not clear cut.
(3) The original text in the article header states that the building design "closely resembles" the NatWest logo. A simple inspection of the two shows that this is clearly more accurate than to state the building design "is that of" the NatWest logo. Clearly the two are not identical.
I have therefore made edits to reflect these points and would be happy to debate the same.82.16.19.157 (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

We can't draw conclusions in articles, so if there are citations showing the issue to be muddy, as you suggest, we should do our best to locate them. Anything you have for the dates of the design of the building and the appearance of the logo would be welcome additions. You were also correct to change my wording back (the earlier wording was also mine); that was a mistake on my part. I'm also removing the word "closely" because it's not quantifiable language. I apologize for my prickly response to your edit, but would also suggest to you that edit summaries stating things to be "contrary to Wikipedia policy" are likely to rub people up the wrong way. Your original edit summary, in fact, suggested the article contained the phrase "deliberately designed to resemble the NatWest logo", which it didn't. If you can keep your edit summaries strictly related to the exact thing that you're doing, and keep commentary to talk pages (as here), that will help us all work together in a collegial fashion. Best regards,  — Scott talk 09:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)