Talk:Chrysler Building

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good article Chrysler Building 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.
January 4, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

FALCONS[edit]

Why doesn't the word FALCON show up even once on this page? Not even on the discussion? It's one of the most unique features of the whole thing! I'll upload a picture if y'all want. Here:File:SepiaChryslerGoyle.jpg There are seven or eight of them jutting off the top. REGULAR-NORMAL (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC).

You can see them from the bottom here. http://wbal.com/blogs/wykoff/uploaded_images/NYC-Chrysler-Building-712943.jpg


REGULAR-NORMAL (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You obviously don't know a dime about proposing of a specific -and- concise subject in mind in an article's Talk Page, rather than just saying "Falcons" simply expecting someone to know what your mind is thinking. Now that you have intelligently defined what they are, they're not falcons, they're Eagles that adorned the machine age and parts of the Chrysler Automobiles in the 30s.
And having said that, I hope that you're not suffering from a bad cataract; it's stated clearly black and white under the Architecture section and as defined:
"The distinctive ornamentation of the building based on features that were then being used on Chrysler automobiles.... corners of the 61st floor are graced with eagles, replicas of the 1929 Chrysler hood ornaments;[29]"
Read carefully and possibly out loud next time in any article before you start proposing something that is already been there in which I wrote in the article since Jan 4th 2007.
In contrast these are ornamental appearances in the architecture of the Chrysler Building and as also defined elsewhere in the article. There are a total 8 steel constructed replicated eagles graced around it.
Someformofhuman Speak now! 09:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

They're obviously falcons. Get out your audubon. Haha thank Jesus the one true God that wikipedia is still the place for obnoxious condescending geeks who go around highlighting the word "I" like they did something useful. REGULAR-NORMAL (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Surrounding Pictures[edit]

I added a third picture to the history section to allow people to view the Chrysler building and its surroundings. Most pictures are just of the building itself and others can't really see what is next to it. Hope this is ok! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmigliari (talkcontribs) 12:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Attention[edit]

I am thrilled to see all the attention that the Chrysler Building receives. My great grandfather, Ralph Squire, was the Structural Steel engineer on the bldg. My father used to tell stories about going to the site with his father (the 'son') to test each piece of strutural steel before it was used in the construction. The architect, Van Allen, was my grandfather's cousin. Nancy Squire-Robinson

It's truly a fantastic building. If you ever find some old pictures of the early days of the building, its construction, or the builders, it'd be great if you could upload them and share them with the world! --Quasipalm 19:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Tenants[edit]

Does anyone know what companies are tenants in the building? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.143.66 (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Various unciteable sources claim the building is mostly, if not totally vacant but for a few tenants.--KJRehberg (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Security[edit]

Does anyone know if you can still walk into the lobby and have a look around? When I was there in June 2001, you could, but I imagine security has been tightened somewhat since then --Robert Merkel 12:32 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

Photo[edit]

Would anyone like to improve this photo? I have a lovely full colour photo of the building lit up at dusk. - Montréalais

Yes! Please give us a better photo of this wonderful building (about the only piece of New York that I'd steal and put in Melbourne if I could;) --Robert Merkel 08:36 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

A great infobox[edit]

Someone wrote this infobox in HTML. I've removed it because it doesn't quite fit anymore with the addition of the template-based standard skyscraper infoboxes, but I felt guilty so I moved it here in case it's ever useful to someone.

Chrysler Building

Chryslerbldg.jpg

Location 405 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York, USA
Constructed 1928-1930
Height 319 m (1048 ft)
Stories 77
Architect William Van Allen
Structural Engineers Ralph Squire and Sons
Cost $20 million (USD)

lobby[edit]

You can in fact walk into the lobby during working hours on the weekdays. There are tours of the building during OpenhouseNYC each year (http://www.ohny.org/ohny_website/start.html).

/bpm

Merge from The Chrysler Building ?[edit]

Someone has just posted a long article at The Chrysler Building. It seems like a paper that was written for a class or something. FreplySpang (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Disambig "Gallery"[edit]

I'm trying to disambiguate for the term "gallery," and this article was on the list. Unfortunatley, none of the links on the dab page seem to match what's needed here, as I assume the top floor used to be a viewing gallery, not an Art gallery. Any ideas of what to do would be appreciated. AlexDitto 22:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

tallest brick building?[edit]

I thought the Chrysler Building is made out of steel and metal, not brick. Even it is was made out of brick, the ESB will still tower over it. Can someone fix this?

- yeah, it definitely has a steel frame... 212.64.98.189 22:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the statement "Chrysler Building is still the tallest brick building in the world." as erroneous and misleading (and absurd), implying that the brick is load-bearing. While the CB has bricks, the vertical load bearing system is steeel frame, not brick. Since the CB has some wood also (say, the in the window transoms), is it also the world's tallest wood bldg? I believe the world's tallest masonry load-bearing bldg is the Monadnock in Chicago (16 stories?).


I does have brick which can be seen up near the Eagles in closeup photos, but the ESB is ALSO brick and in the late 60's on the 86th floor observatory was a glass display case with a brick inside it. It said the architect ordered 10 million brick, and this one brick was what was left over. This is also confirmed;

The Empire State Building is composed of 60000 tons of steel, 200000 cubic feet of Indiana limestone and granite, 10 million bricks, www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/empire_state.html

There's also;

in addition to the steel frame, construction materials included 62,000 cubic yards of concrete; 200,000 cubic feet of Indiana limestone and granite, which comprised most of the exterior

http://www.constructioncompany.com/historic-construction-projects/empire-state-building/

And last but not least, proof that the ESB contains almost 300% more bricks;

    At one point 3000 construction workers were working on the tower simultaneously.

- 20,961 tons of structural steel, 391,881 rivets, and 3,826,000 bricks were used to assemble the (Chrysler) building.

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=114867

"The Chrysler Building was the first structure in the world to surpass the 1,000 foot (305 m) threshold." ; Didn't want to change the page flat out, but this is conflicting with Eiffel Tower page, define structure, the Eiffel Tower (1889) is all together 1,070. Chrysler building was the first building but not structure.. just lobbying for accuracy.

Actually, when the chrysler building passed the Eiffel Tower, The tower wasn't over 1000 feet tall yet. The Eiffel Tower is currently 1063 Feet tall, but this is due to a 79 communications antenna which was added in 1957. So when the Chrysler surpassed the Eiffel in 1930, It was the first man-made structure of any sort to exceed 1000 feet in height. Please see the introduction and Events sections of the Eiffel Tower Article for these references.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWut89LA (talkcontribs) 16:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

38 or 58 m spire?[edit]

This page says the secretly assembled spire was 38 m: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40_Wall_Street The Chrysler Building page itself says: 58.4 m. Now, which is it? Or is the 58.4 m including some length which isn't visable from the outside?

"Despite not being the second tallest tower in New York..."[edit]

The above was added to the article today, but... according to Wikipedia's list of the world's tallest buildings, the Chrysler Building is the second tallest tower in New York... ? HMishkoff 00:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the erroneous statement that the Chrysler Building is not the second tallest tower in NY. 68.175.106.173 07:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Anon


Gut the Popular Culture section?[edit]

All of it seems mostly trivia and not in itself notable. Unless someone responds, I'll be bold and edit

I say, cut out anything which is not definately about the CB. that would exclude 'looks like' and 'inspired by' and 'in the background'IceDragon64 21:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that people always excuse their disemboweling of articles by saying "I'll be bold."
And the word is spelled "definitely", not "definately". -- Davidkevin (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


Someformofhuman says:

"It is also mentioned that it has appeared in every medium. Hence, we do not have to mention in detail.)

Yep, it says that, all right: I should know, as I wrote that text. In your ignorance, you're quoting my own words to me as justification for damaging the article.

Disemboweling the section makes the article less interesting, less involving, less encyclopedic. Saying "People can see it in some places" and no more is dry and boring. Giving select examples brings the reader into the subject, gives her or him something with which to identify, and makes it a better article.

One of the best ways to improve Wikipedia is not to be a Bureaucrat, deleting information, but a Writer, adding information. -- Davidkevin (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know how is it that you found me ignorant of the edits and managed to "quote your own words". (No really, I really have no idea you were thinking that way. Neither was I thinking that way either), I have no time for such guessing games; not that I mean to offend you in anyway, but I don't usually attack or hit anyone so far - that isn't my style in Wikipedia - and I'll never do such a thing for my first try either. Life has better meaning than doing debates.
Anyway, well is not that I do not acknowledge your edits but I would like to know how is it and in what way adding the building's portrayal in games, and etc makes such a good encyclopedic revelance to the article? I did what I can do nominate this article to GA status. Most of these Pop culture sections are mainly unsourced fan-based speculations and cannot be on Wikipedia - GA nominators are quite particular about this. Also, the section already explained that the Chrysler Building has expressed in various mediums already, so I feel there's non-a-need to add specific appearences of the building. And what about yourself? Not that I have pointy iron fingers or offending you in anyway, I didn't even see you doing any constructive and knowledgable edits to the article like what I just did. Did you? You know in my point of view, you were just reverting my clean up edits and nothing else.
My policy is this; No source, no add, simple as that. In this case, the Pop Culture section doesn't cite sources. As I read through the entire section, I see nothing but fan-based trivia like content. Wikipedia isn't a fun station - It's a place of learning and true facts.
Well I'm definately not going to argue with you or challenge our perceptives, I have better student material things to do right now.
I wish you good will and a great Christmas Season.

Someformofhuman Talk now! | My Contribs

16:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Chrysler Corp[edit]

Does anyone know how long the Chrysler Corporation was actually housed in the building? heresthecasey | talk 23:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No Chrysler inteneded to move his headquarters to the building but never did, it maintained small offices there for awhile though, but it was really only a monument to Chrysler and never functioned as a headquarters or important office space for Chrysler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.93.181 (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Interior[edit]

What struck me most when I saw the CB was the lobby interior. As I recall it has striking huge dark panels of labradorite on the walls. Could someone upload a photo of this? IceDragon64 21:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes please. I recall seeing a documentary TV programme about this beautiful building and I understand it is absolutely stunning inside. I've never been to New York but I consider from the photos and documentary that I have seen that the Chrysler building is my favourite building in the world. It's just amazing. It would be terrific to see photos of the excellent interior if someone has the means to obtain and post them.

I would additionally be interested to know if someone in NY would advise, is it still possible to visit and tour the building ? Aethandor (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Building[edit]

There is a modern model of the Chrysler Building from New York in Chicago. Does anyone know what the name of that is?

GA review[edit]

Hello, I will be the GA reviewer for this article. If there are any questions whatsoever do not be hesitant to ask them. Any questions can be left on this talkpage or on my user talkspace. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Source http://wirednewyork.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-3656.html is a forum posting. How can this be contrued as a reliable source? Daimanta (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Done.

Source http://select.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26resQ3DF70B13FC3C550C728CDDA00894DD404482&OP=4c7583a3Q2F(9KQ3C(vP_KWQ5Bl(Q60_Q3FWQ27Q27vO(W7Q60jPsKQ277Q5E_KQ60_KQ5B(W7_PQ60aK,Q27WJ!j_la is a source where you need clearance for. Since I don't have that clearance the authors of this article are responsible for that source. If it's possible to use an open equivalent of this source it would be appreciated but I don't hold it against the nomination if this isn't the case. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC) ?

"When the ground breaking occurred on 19 September 1928, there was an intense competition in New York City to build the world's tallest skyscraper." This ought to be sourced. Daimanta (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Done.

Also, it is best if the entire inforbox has one source. I have seen some technical ones for this page, so it's probably pretty easy to take the best one from them. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Done.

Gee I was thinking of those too you know... I knew something was amiss... I do not know who added those sources, but forums aren't allowed as sources. And yeah, I will manage to find some new and reliable sources. Thanks for the headsup nevertheless! I'll edit them tomorrow... It's 12am here :)
Someformofhuman Speak now! 16:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey I've managed to add sources. However for that NYTimes source, I'm not too canny sure about that... I don't really know much about those stakeholders and business dealings though. However for that infobox, I can't use a wikimarkup to add a source or modify the box. Therefore at the end of the table I added a: |Source:Emporis.com, SkyscaperPage.com]]|}} markup. Let me know if everything's fine.
Someformofhuman Speak now! 11:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"As an iconic part of the New York City skyline, the Chrysler Building has been depicted countlessly in almost every medium - film, photography, video games, art, advertising, music, literature, and even fashion, as its use quickly establishes without doubt the location in which the depicted events are occurring."

This is a bit vague. Can somebody clarify this? Maybe giving an example where this building features prominently? Regards, Daimanta (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Done.

Also, it's probably a smart idea to move the gallery section down. It breaks up the article and I don't think that's the idea of a gallery section. Daimanta (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Done.

Agreed. I will give a few cultural depictions and (good) examples of the Chrysler Building depicted in literature, famous films and certain games. I will base on the format of Sears Tower instead of the usual point form. If you look through the history of this article, there were alot of pop culural depictions of the Chrysler Building in films and games, but those were unsourced and very fan-based speculations - and some of them very minor and uncyclopedic. So I removed all of them or IPs will keep pouring with alot of unsourced info unnecessarily. This time round, all cultural depictions will be sourced and throughly fact checked by me.
As for the gallery, I don't know who placed it there, but alright; I'll move it to the bottom - Seems to be better at the bottom! Done.
Someformofhuman Speak now! 12:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the interior lacks a deal of attention. Can this be brought forward a little bit more? Regards, Daimanta (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Researching...

It seems like I'm the only one doing all the editing... What happened to everyone else? Looks like its only just you and me :) Anyway, I borrowed some books from the library. See if I can find any source of the interior spaces and architectural features.

Someformofhuman Speak now! 17:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Daimanta allowed for other input on the GA Nom page... so here's some thoughts. It seems as though the 'Design Beginnings' ought to be in with the architecture, as that would seem to mate well with the explanation of included Art Deco elements seen in the 'Architecture' section. The uses of the upper floors seems like it should either go after the (now) third para of Architecture, which expands on the Art Deco via lighting and shape explanation, or better, go above, into the history section, as it actually seems more relevant to the building's ingteractions with the city, and with changing technology. The Architecture section ought to focus on the design elements, not the later uses, which the history section otherwise does nicely. So essentially, a paragraph to subsection trade, I suppose. ThuranX (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Done.

You know, great minds think alike. :) Thanks for the headsup, I was thinking of shifting sections too. I do not know who wrote the Architecture section, but it sure needs clean up. I've done alot for the History, so yes, I'll see what I can do to incorporate the sections over as you have mentioned. I'll put it under the history section if there's anything that has got to do with the timeline of the building. Finally, I got the help I need, I can't be doing all the editing work! :)

Someformofhuman Speak now! 07:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Those books I got from the library aren't helping as much; they only expresses the writer's POV of Chrysler (it also shows he/she doesn't have a dime clue about the building), states no particular source and nothing else, and vast talking nothing but about NY politics... :( Anyway, I've managed to break up the Architecture section... Perhaps my great work was the crown ornamentation. If I have more sources, I will add the interior section later. Also, the only thing I need to further cite is the broadcasting section.
Someformofhuman Speak now! 17:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work. If you cite the broadcast section it will be surely of GA quality. If that's done I will promote it. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Finally! Some recognition! Do I get some kind of reward? Joking... :)
Someformofhuman Speak now! 04:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Lol, just make the finishing touch and you will have my gratitude. ;)

Just tell me when you're done and you have helped creating another GA page. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright now, it's a long and hard breaking labour to clean up the article... Now go give it a GA status! :)
Someformofhuman Speak now! 14:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the article has been promoted to GA status. I would like to thank the authors of this article and the people who fulfilled my requests for making this a good article. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... I think it's just me doing the editing? haha :) Someformofhuman Speak now! 01:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

temporary use of a user space template[edit]

Hi, I am demonstrating a template upgrade suggestion, please see Template_talk:Infobox_Skyscraper#Live_map_capability for further details. I shall take this down after the demo is finished. Thanks. -J JMesserly (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Cloverfield and thoughts[edit]

Wasn't the building knocked over in the Cloverfield movie? And for what it's worth, in the continuity of Marvel Comics, the entire building has gained sentience and mobillity. It's been convinced to keep a low profile. (World War Hulk: Aftersmash: Damage Control #2-3) Lots42 (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


    Well, I dont know about Cloverfield, but it was definitely destroyed in Godzilla (1998).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.211.43.2 (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC) 

Infobox problems[edit]

The "embed" boolean of the NRHP infobox is apparently not compatible with the skyscraper infobox. I've therefore removed the NRHP box from being inline with the skyscraper box and placed it separately below. This change also required moving the architecture detail image from right to left. I'm new to editing so if anyone else has a better solution to the infobox bug, please feel free to improve... Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhwebforge (talkcontribs) 21:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Lighting[edit]

The triangular inserts in the crown were in fact not used for many years until they were turned on again in the 1980s. (I distinctly remember their novelty.) At the time, it was said that the lights had been turned off during WWII, but that the switch had been forgotten and only recently been relocated.

I was unable to turn up anything on Google, but I wonder if someone else has a good reference for this. 192.91.173.36 (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference problems[edit]

http://ecow.engr.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/getbig/cee/340/davidcamac/studentsbu/chryslerbuilding.ppt which supports no fewer than 11 statements in the article, is now a dead link. From the looks of the URL, it must have been a student's Powerpoint presentation for a class. I have no intention of logging on to fix it, but one of this article's regular caretakers really ought to. 192.91.173.36 (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It can still be accessed using wikiwix : http://wikiwix.com/cache/?url=http://ecow.engr.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/getbig/cee/340/davidcamac/studentsbu/chryslerbuilding.ppt&title=Chrysler%20Building.ppt. Freewol (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Bathroom rumor[edit]

I've read elsewhere online that there is a rumor that the highest point in the Chrysler Building is a bathroom. I'm not sure there's any truth to it, but is the rumor itself worthy of inclusion, simply to dispel it should people come looking? Esprix (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

InterMedia?[edit]

I'm not sure InterMedia's one floor even warrants mention under "Tenants", but certainly not under "Property". And by the way "Property seems like an odd name for that section ... although I can't think of one that seems right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.89.93 (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

First man-made structure to stand taller than 1,000 feet (305 m)?[edit]

I reverted an IP who had challenged this statement here, but not so sure he wasn't right after digging into it more.

The Eiffel Tower's height at the time of the Chrysler Building's completion is the first key thing to determine. According to this source Eiffel Tower's height in 1930 was 312.27 m / 1,025 ft to "to of flag", but only 984 ft to "roof".

So do we measure to the top of antennas, or more to the point(punny) in this case, to the top of flags when considering records like this? If so, the article and my revert are wrong. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 15:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 4/13/14[edit]

Could a seprate page be created to contain the uses of the Chrysler Building in its appearences in tv shows, movies, books, video games, and whatever else? I'll give some examples below. --24.147.1.197 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley
  • For example, the building appears in GTA 4 as the Zirconium Building in Liberty City.
  • The building is destroyed in the year 2308 during an alien invasion on Futurama and the spire can be seen lying underground in the ruins of Old New York.
  • A megatsumani in the 1998 film Deep Impact hits the Chrysler Building but survives.

--24.147.1.197 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley

public gallery for observation?[edit]

The architecture section's crown subsection has this: When the building first opened, it contained a public viewing gallery on the 71st floor, which was closed to the public in 1945.
There is no other mention about it. But someone wrote in the talk page section "lobby" this text: You can in fact walk into the lobby during working hours on the weekdays. There are tours of the building during OpenhouseNYC each year. What would "tours of the building" mean here?
Also, there is a picture with a view out from one of the 'triangular windows' from 2006. So, at least someone has been able to go there. 82.141.126.28 (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In popular culture section[edit]

In keeping with the article's status as a Good Article, I removed the unsourced "In popular culture" section temporarily. Epicgenius (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Epicgenius's actions above, although we are likely to have further problems with offensive, unregistered IP editor. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I removed another such edit by User:2403:7900:ade1:a1de:250:56ff:fea6:3b1f; this time, they provided a source, albeit an unreliable one. [1] Epicgenius (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree with your action. "Edits" by the IP users add nothing to the article, which is about a iconic building and not a adjunct to science fiction fantasy. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Chrysler Building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I've checked the urls. Substituted some. And the ppt presentation I have decided to remove it. Doblecaña (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Mural[edit]

I've uploaded images of the mural located in the ceilings of the lobby. They were taken by a friend that was in NYC and visited the CB. They can be found here. Feel free to add them in the article. Triplecaña (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chrysler Building. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 18:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chrysler Building. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 08:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chrysler Building. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 01:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal/Edit Request 12/18/2017[edit]

Does anyone think the the popular culture section could be relocated to a new article? I mean, if an article describing the Chrysler Building's appearances in pop culture was created, there would be more room to add the buildings appearances in films, TV shows, video games, books, ect. After all, the pop culture section that is already on the article can't hold too much information without making the article look ridiculously too long and messy.

The Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, the World Trade Center, and Coney Island have all gotten the treatment of having popular culture articles, so why can't the Chrysler Building have a popular culture article as well?

If an article about the Chrysler Building's appearances in popular culture does get created, I'll be happily obliged to help out with the article. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The section doesn't seem that large, I would also think that "appearances in pop culture" would be mostly non-notable trivia anyway. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)