Talk:Flatiron Building

Why is a sloppily tinted version of Edward Steichen's superb b/w photo of the flatiron being used?

---

How long did it take to build? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.80.197.12 (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that this article should have been moved from Flatiron Building to Flatiron Building (New York). The Flatiron Building in New York is by far the primary usage of the term and a link to Flatiron Building (disambiguation), which mentioned in detail the buildings in Tornoto and Atlanta, already existed at the top of the article in the primary topic diambig. format. I have already tried to initiate a disscusion with the Radiojon, who made the edit at his talk page, but he has not yet responded.

If there is no reply to my post by July 19 2004, I will assume that there are no objections and I will move the page back to Flatiron Building in accordance with primary topic disambiguation.

-JCarriker 07:37, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

I moved it from Flatiron Building (New York) to Flatiron Building per JCarriker's request. --Jiang 05:14, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is confusing <<<A clock face can also be seen. However, under the advice of John Wellborn Root, this was removed from the design.>>> Is there a clock face that can be seen, or was it removed from the design??

A question to the experts on Flat iron building: I have heard somewhere that the outer shape of the building had nothing to do with an "architecture innovation", but in fact the outer boundary of the building site. Because of the extremly high prices in NY, they wished to get the most out of it and therefore adapted the shape and built a sky-scraper as tall as was possible at that time for this unusual narrow design not to risk the stability. I have not seen anything about this in the available litterature. Ivar Kreuger worked as a construction engineer for the company Purdy & Henderson that carried out construction and calculations for Fuller Construction Co. at that time, thus was a member of the engineering team. Lidingo SWE (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Too many photos, and too many external links?

There are a lot of photos in this particular article. Do we need all of them?

As a related question: The external links are almost all for "more photos". Should we remove them all? IMHO, we should only be using commons photos and not linking to external photo pages dm (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The balance of photos in the article is good. They show: the overall building, details of it, the building under construction, the building in the context of the area it's in, and for good measure an artistic interpretation of the bulding. I think that's just fine. There were plenty other good pictures I could have added, but I refrained from doing so because these are a good mix and don't overwhelm the article, especially in a gallery at the bottom, rather than running down the side.

As for removing the links -- why? They're legitimate sites with good content relevant to the subject. The fact that they contain photographs is irrelevant. I would never say "Hey look at all of these external links, they all have text in them -- don't we have enough text?" Visual images are a legitimate conduit of information, no better or worse than text. Let's leave those three little links alone, since there's no legitimate reason for removing them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, about Commons -- I agree that we should use Commons photos in the articles, and indeed all the photos there are from the Commons, but there are plenty of reasons why not all visual or graphic images are able to be uploaded to the Commons, so limiting oneself to them is... well, limiting.

BTW, whenever did 3 links get to be considered to be "too many"? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the quality of the links, not their number I object to. Perhaps I should have said too many poor quality links. Merely pointing at more webpages with photos seems like a less than useful link. It's an iconic building and we have plenty of great photos for it. Why are we linking to more? I'm thinking of Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided and Wikipedia:NOT#LINK when I say I'd rather see links to more authoritative external sources.dm (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I dispute that the quality of the photos is poor. One, in particular, is extremely good. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other. I'm saying that we already have enough good images, that linking to more doesnt add more value, and that these links dont seem to meet the criteria I mentioned above. You seem focused on an extremely good photo at one of these external sites. If it's that great, you should spend time getting it into the Commons and replacing an image that's of lesser quality. Or am I missing something in your argument? dm (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, when you reverted my change, you put the broken "Shorpy" link back in. I'll let you clean that up since you didnt like my other changes. dm (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The link works fine. It's not broken. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, something odd with it. Under Safari, even though it claims to be a jpg, it goes to a page not found. If you reload, you get it. Under Firefox, it pops up the jpg. I'll assume it's a Safari bug. Sorry for the confusion there. dm (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the newyorkbirds.free.fr link because it was part of massive cross wiki spam. I had requested the link to be blacklisted on Meta, and now it is blacklisted. If you want to have the link in this article you will have to seek local whitelisting here on en.wikipedia. --Jorunn (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me how to do that? I'd appreciate it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You can seek local whitelisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. --Jorunn (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I don't think I'd do it for here, but I transferred that link to Flatiron District and I might want to try it for there. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 13:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo credits

I provided the link to "tips for describing pictures", which clearly states that image credits should only be included if the photographer is notable. Daryl Samuel, a Wikipedia user, doesn't quite meet this criteria. Also regarding the photographer, not all of this information needs to be included in the caption. Mr Fitzgerald responds with "it's pretty much universal". Thoughts, anyone? - Dudesleeper | Talk 15:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Several considerations are relevant here. First, the Manual of Style is, as it clearly states, a guideline. It is not dogma to be slavishly followed. Further, the section described provides "tips", and says that "generally" credit for non-notable photographers is given on the talk page. These words clearly undermine the claim that this practice is mandatory.

In the real world, whenever possible, crediting for photographs is done in close proximity to the picture itself. Certainly in the situation where room for a caption is provided, which is the case on Wikipedia (and these are captions, i.e. descriptions of the photograph, not "tags"), there is no excuse for not providing credit in the same place, especially when the photograph is not public domain, but has been uploaded to the Commons with the caveat that attibution be given. To bury this attribution on a separate page that most users of a page will never visit seems like a clear violation of the terms of the picture's uploading - in spirit, surely, if not absolutely. I see no reason why the credit should be removed, since it is non-instrusive (in small type) and not prohibited. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do find it intrusive, and your claim that there is "room for a caption is provided" is a little weak. As someone who hasn't felt the need to state his ownership on his multitude of images in use across Wikipedia, I will continue to follow the guideline set out. - Dudesleeper | Talk 20:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I have been uploading a few pictures every week, since I got a camera in October. None are credited to me in the article. Not even in the talk page. It's the same as for words; we don't get credit in the article, and most readers will have no idea who wrote the words or took the pictures in the article. Those few who care, can look it up. Real world is different from Wikipedia? Yes, there are good reasons for the differences. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is becoming, and should aim to become, the de facto standard entry reference work on the web. As such, there really is no longer much room for Wikipedia to pretend that it's not part of the real world – it is.

As for your words - every edit is "credited" in the history of a page, but ultimately the difference is that the text of this encyclopedia is, by design, a collective effort, and for that reason no individual credit is given. A photograph is different, it's an objectin and of itself, and, just like the facts included in an article, which are supposed to be (but rarely are) credited to their source via a citation, photographs should be credited to their creator, if that's the condition under which they've been uploaded.

That brings up a possible compromise. What if I were to move the photo credit down to a footnote, that seems to me to be conceptually about halfway between the talk page and the photo caption -- how would that sit? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ed, comments like "clear violation of the terms of the pictures uploading" (even though its licensed under GFDL) is enough for me to say, remove the image, especially a fuzzy relatively low resolution scan of an 8 year old photograph like the one by Darryl Samuel. I'm really having a hard time understanding your thoughts around the images and links to images on this page. I'm assuming good faith, but I'm starting to feel a strong sense that you should read WP:OWN. Calling the MOS a guideline is correct, but you havent given much of a reason why you are deviating from it. I dont think there should be attribution in a footnote either, IMHO. dm (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please continue to assume good faith -- and I'm entirely aware of WP:OWN.

I'm a little perplexed why you're perplexed. Someone uploads a photo with the requirement - perfectly within the rules - that it be used with attribution, and you don't see that putting that attribution on another page that almost no one is going to look at, when there is space available (readily available) right where the photo is used, is, at least in spirit, a breach of the understanding under which the photo was shared with the community? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a contentious topic that has been discussed countless times on Wikipedia. The consensus is that photographers are attributed on the image pages, not within the article. Like in many books, where you'll find the photographer credits all together at the end. (If at all...!) Otherwise, we could equally well start crediting all the text contributors in a section at the bottom of each article. Lupo 11:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that the uploader wants his name credited directly under the image in the article? Not that it would mean it would be permitted, but it would help us understand why you're so persistent. - Dudesleeper | Talk 11:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that this discussion should go on for so long in the talk page for an article about a building, rather than in a more general forum, for example one about photography in New York. Anyway, down to substance, the link seems to cover the question pretty well with the intent that everything in the article contribute to the article. Being fair to us authors isn't what it's about; we are only here to serve the readers.

• If photographers or other authors wish to impose conditions that are fair to them, then the proper thing is to omit the work, if the article is not about the author.
• Do pictures differ from other works such as paragraphs or other prose? Yes, in some ways, but not in this regard, far as I see. Yes, a picture generally has only one author, while a paragraph may have many, and the image page takes care of that question properly.
• Is a photograph an object in itself? Eh? It's a lot of ones and zeros, same as anything else in Wikipedia.
• Does the rule absolutely without exceptions forbid mentioning the author in a caption or footnone or the body of the article? No, there can be exceptions, for example a picture by a notable photographer, but I don't see that the present article has any pictures that call for an exception.
• Is Wikipedia replacing Britannica and its ilk as the world's standard reference work? Perhaps, but be that as it may, it doesn't either make the rule bad or call for an exception in this case.

I hope some of us photo bugs can get together in the Wikimedia New York Chapter meeting a couple weeks from now and discuss this and other questions, even though this particular question seems rather an open and shut case. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Steichen is indisputably a notable photographer. And the 1's and 0's arguement is, frankly, pretty damn silly: a table and an onion are both made out of atoms and molecules, which doesn't help us in the least when deciding which one is furniture and which one is a vegetable, because it's at a totally different level of reality -- and yet furniture and vegetables exist as different categories of things.

Be that as it may, I can see I'm not going to prevail in this argument against this kind of entrenched viewpoint, so with my last registration of protest that the rule is a bad one and does not serve Wikipedia well, I bow to this reality. I'll remove the credit. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I doff my hat to you. - Dudesleeper | Talk 12:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam link

I took out the link to the photography website for a couple reasons.

1. We already have our own gallery here and linked to the Commons gallery. The link does not add much value beyond what we already have.
2. It's a commercial site, with the site owner clearly wanting to sell his photos. Why favor his site over the countless other similar sites? Wikipedia shouldn't be doing that.
3. Most important reason of all: The link has been repeatedly spammed on numerous pages. I took out approximately a dozen of these links today, on various pages about NYC and DC. See here as an example diff of how these links were added. His edit summary was "added architectural landmarks", with the edit including an additional sentence. However, he always also sneaks in his link (under a false edit summary). That edit was back in July, and I had reverted it then. So sorry I haven't watch the pages closely enough to catch this sooner. This morning I found the link again on a page, and saw the link had been re-added on numerous other pages. Looking at the edit history of that page, I see it was re-added shortly after I took it out, by a new user. (a sock) This time, his edit summary was "notable buldings - grammatical error". In reality, his edit had nothing to do with any grammatical errors or notable buildings. He simply re-added the link and apparently continues to do this. - Special:Contributions/Czenkaj as recently as last week.

For these reasons, the link is completely unacceptable and I may go ahead and get it added to the spam blacklist. --Aude (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Our gallery is limited because of copyright and fair use reasons. Have you actually looked at the website? Yes, it's commercial, but it's commercial in such a low-key, I'm-just-making-some-money-selling-my-photographs kind of way, with no hard sell, no outside links, no requirement to buy anything just to look at the handsome photographs, that I don't find it objectionable in the least. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen the site and the sneaky way the site owner has been repeatedly adding the links is problematic. He has been warned politely, but disregards us and Wikipedia guidelines. I'm very tired of checking and re-checking for these links and watching for them. It takes away from time to work on article writing and other productive tasks here. In principle, I don't mind if you choose another quality site, but not this one please. It's too much of a problem. Also, note that we have the Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Takes_Manhattan event coming up later this month, which is an opportunity for Wikipedia to get new photographs. The Flatiron Building should be an important place to cover. --Aude (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're conflating two different things: the quality of the site, which is what I was referring to, and the site owner's actions. If you agree that the site itself is not problematic, then it's the site owners actions which are - but the site owner wouldn't have to resort to those actions if you weren't removing the links. If the site is OK, leave it on, and the site owner won't have any reason to re-add the links - right? By continuing to remove the links, you're creating a catch-22 situation for the site owner. It takes two to do this particular dance. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)