Talk:Empire State Building/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Why does the sidebar claim it's 1,550 feet tall?

Someone please fix. Really embarrassing. Ok I fixed some of it, cba to fix the rest. The sidebar trivia stuff comes up as first and foremost on a mobile search by the way. I was curious about how long it's been wrong, and it turns out it's been a month.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.65.65 (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done. The remainder are fixed. The article was vandalized on Oct. 2 by an editor (subsequently blocked) who added 100 or 300 feet to each of the height figures, which went uncorrected until now. Good catch; thanks. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

1929 or 1930?

Both dates appear as beginning of construction. Chvsanchez (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

History incomplete

The building was acquired by Harry Helmsley in 1961. Valetude (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Incidents

There has been at least one serious fire. And there was a potentially catastrophic incident when a lift-cable sheared, and the lift plummeted down to 200 feet. One safety system after another failed, until the final backup. By chance, there were no tourists on board, but there were two staff. Valetude (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Bad reference

As of revision 312277217, the Suicide section has contained a reference to http://books.google.com/books?id=sAQOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PT30&lpg=PT30&dq=Elvita+Adams&source=bl&ots=Ap2kHjUeVa&sig=XgIS3PBjTRKa-w7ZJj5oMn5Jtzc&hl=en&ei=5E-kSpi7GZ6ntgeO9vHSDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=Elvita%20Adams&f=false. This seems to be a grammar book. Not sure if that link was originally to a different book. We need to either find the original book or remove that reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.156.29 (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the date of that revision? The reference in question does not seem to be anywhere in the article now. However, here's an additional reference of interest that could be added. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the floor count be labeled 103?

INCLUDE BOTH
The presented evidence shows that different highly reliable sources provide different numbers. So per WP:DUE, seeing as reliable sources seem to disagree, we should include both floor counts. Closing per request at WP:AN/RFC. Tvx1 13:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

A while back there was a lengthy discussion over the floor count of the Empire State Building. There seemed to be interesting debate from both sides. When the building was erected, a disembarkation floor was built to tether airships to the spire. This is now commonly known as the 103rd floor. As of July 2015, the floor count is officially listed on the Wikipedia page as 102 floors and there is a separate paragraph explaining what is above that. Leoesb1032 (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You are quite correct about the previous discussions regarding the 103rd floor. My own view is that the floor is there and the floor count should be 103, otherwise the paragraph about the 103rd floor looks strange. The references describe the floor and what is was originally intended for. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
It depends on what sources you look at. I've seen some citing 102 or 103 as the tallest floor. Leoesb1032 (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
When the previous discussion took place, I mentioned two of the most commonly cited (WP-wide), and presumably most reliable sources, which apply standard definitions of architectural height, only to be told that we don't apply standards, "we let the sources we cite do that." In the lead, currently, three sources in a row, all major and respected, do just that. And they all say 102 stories. If a consensus is needed, that certainly looks like one to me. The section Empire State Building#Above the 102nd floor is indeed confusing and needs to be rewritten to indicate that the 103rd "floor" is not generally included in the floor count, and the reason(s) for that. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Ehhhh. I think CNN is quite a bit more respected than "skyscraperpage.com". The New York Times says 103 floors in this article. On the other hand, it says 102 floors in this article. So, why not just say "102 or 103 floors" and include an explanatory footnote? Obviously, some high quality sources disagree with "skyscraperpage.com". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
If reliable sources disagree, our article should say so - and explain what the disagreement is about. We don't take a vote to ignore legitimate sources just because they contradict other sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I like the footnote idea. For now, I'll add it in but keep it labeled as 102 in the article. Leoesb1032 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't believe we need an RfC for this. Wholly support NinjaRobotPirate's comments above. 102 or 103 with a relevant footnote and explanation. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
What NinjaRobotPirate said. This is a no-brainer. Too many arguments break out from either/or approaches when the best one in situations like this is a very simple "and". "Some consider the ESB to have 102 floors, others that count the floor formerly used for disembarkation, arrive at 103". Simple. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Empire State 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 01:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Death count

The official death count during construction is 5, but I've read in a few sources the actual number is 20-30. Are there any good sources? BrotherSulayman (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2015

  • The 2003 holiday comedy film Elf features one of Santa's elves who learns of his true identity as a human and travels from the North Pole to New York City to meet his biological father, who works at the Empire State Building.

73.231.242.33 (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but this seems like a trivial passing reference to the building. We don't need to list every film or book that even mentions this building, or we'd have a gigantic list of neglibible value. The whole pop culture section is in need of cleanup. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 06:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Mooring mast & floor count

The ESB does not have 102 physical floors. The 86th floor is the highest concrete floor in the ESB, while the interior of the mooring mast contains a long staircase & elevator shaft. Floors 88 through 100 do not physically exist. Think of it as a mini CN Tower atop a real building.

  1. I've visited the ESB in person multiple times. When the mooring mast's elevator malfunctioned, visitors got redirected to the stairs, which made it apparent there weren't actual floors in that mast.
  2. See this cross section: http://www.interestingamerica.com/images/NY_images/Manhattan/Empire_State_Building/Empire_State_Building_Mooring_Mast_412_426.jpg
  3. The 86-102 elevator itself does not show floor numbers, but rather the number of feet above street level, from 1050' to 1250' in 25' increments.

You're not going to get reliable info from the Empire State Reality Trust, as floor count inflation works wonders for marketing purposes. But I feel this article should be updated to reflect the facts. 1WTC and 2WTC were the first buildings to have over 100+ real floors, and Willis Tower is the earliest 100+ story building to remain standing today. Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Aaaaaabbbbb111: As you may know, information in WP must be verifiable in reliable and secondary sources. Direct, personal experience does not qualify! The need for verification applies all the more so to controversial information, such as whatever contradicts existing sourced content. Perhaps you can find suitable published sources to back up your interpretation of floor counts. However, it is possible that including equivalent height in floor counts may turn out to a legitimate practice; perhaps someone familiar with architectural standards can tell us whether that is so. If it is, than the widely-published number of stories, 102, has not been inflated by false marketing. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The floors in the mast do exist but they're only metal grills. If you drop something it might fall all the way through the mast until it reaches concrete. This is how they change the light bulbs inside that make it glow - walking on the grill. (I can't be sure that hasn't changed but it was like that at least part of the 21st century) I think the floors in the "pedestal" for the mast are solid (not sure) (86-90?) I'm pretty sure the deck without a terrace is the 101st floor. The floor above with a terrace is the 102nd floor. The tiny floor above that that looks like a hat would be the 103rd floor but I believe it doesn't count according to the CTBUH as elevator/broadcasting equipment/roof access penthouses don't count (observation deck is an acceptable use) Note that the 1250 feet in the elevator is the height of the roof so it exaggerates a little. The indoor observation floor is at 1212, the floor above that is about 1224. If you stand on your toes maybe your eyeballs are at 1230. That's it. 20 feet short (1280 feet above sea level) You'd need a source to put something in the article though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The building has 103 floors, not 102

There are tons of sources for this. Why is it still listed as 102 in the Lede? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Previously discussed (see both archives & section above). Statement in lede, with its explanatory note 2, is per editorial consensus. The ambiguity was recognized and has been dealt with. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I've checked the archived RfC as well as the disucssions from previous concerns regarding the matter. The result of the RfC is that both floor counts should be included int he Lede, and not as a note. I'd suggest an edit to include the difference.
And frankly it seems kind of dumb not to include something that so very, very obviously exists. Just because the average person isn't allowed in the White House Situation Room doesn't suggest that it doesn't exist. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes but 103 is not accessible to the general public. It is no more a "floor" than the access space beneath the communication mast is a floor. In fact the section entitled "Above the 102nd floor" is written to the usual pisspoor standard that Wikipedia excels at. It's contradictory and makes stuff up. For example it's claimed the 103rd floor was for dirigible departures, but 1) there is no evidence that commercial flights were ever going to use the Empire State Building, 2) the source that is cited makes no mention to the purpose of floor 103. Also it conflates the floor itself with the balcony with the machine room - making it sound non-sensical when it states it's a "celebrity hotspot". Buy a properly edited book on the building if you want facts. 86.182.43.116 (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017

Correct spelling of storey in the first sentence (currently spelled story) ThatDave R (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: That is correct spelling for US English. RudolfRed (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Caption

The caption to the panoramic view ought to state whether it's a view over the Hudson or the East River. Valetude (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Caption edited. View includes both rivers. Hertz1888 (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Why not use a better image of the building?

A "quality image"

Cropped perhaps.

16:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Empire State 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Empire State 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Empire State 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Empire State 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2017

Under the ownership section the word "building" is misspelled as "buildign" it should be fixed to be spelled correctly. Zagduck (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Done @Zagduck: Thank you for pointing that out. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Empire State 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.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Empire State Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 12:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


Looks really good - will review over the weekend. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm about to put on hold; should be straightforward to get over the line for GA - nice work! If you're planning to take it onto FAC, let me know. I've some thoughts on the more specialist literature on skyscraper history that you might draw on to reinforce the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for finishing this review. I should get through these over the next week, but since it's Christmas, I might need some time to fix all those issues. epicgenius (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
No prob's. Take your time, and enjoy the Yuletide season! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Looking good; just about to pass. Nice work! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

  • "As of 2017 the Empire State Building is the fifth-tallest completed skyscraper in the United States and the 28th-tallest in the world. It is also the sixth-tallest freestanding structure in the Americas. When measured by pinnacle height, it is the fifth-tallest building in the United States." - the row of stats so soon into the lead felt a bit jarring/repetitious; I'd have recommended using the 28th-tallest and fifth-tallest building in the US, and leaving it at that.
    • Done.
  • "The Empire State Building, as it was then dubbed, " - the "as it was then dubbed" doesn't quite work as written (it could mean several things); I'd recommend losing the "as it was then dubbed".
    • Done. The "dubbing" wasn't necessary anyway since the building has the same name as now.
  • "beating out the Chrysler Building and 40 Wall Street," - "beating out"; I think this is an informal US English variant, but you could just say "beating the Chrysler..." and you'd have saved a word, and the style would appeal to non-US readers! ;)
    • Done. I never really realized that "beating out" was redundant. After all, the builders were quite literally competing with each other. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • " has been featured in dozens of TV shows and movies" - "dozens" can mean almost any number, from 12 to 100 really; can we be more specific?
    • I saw 250 on the Empire States Building's official website. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "was ranked number one on the AIA's List" - Who/what are the AIA?
    • American Institute of Architects.
  • "The area to the south and west features other major Manhattan landmarks as well, including Macy's at Herald Square on Sixth Avenue and 34th Street,[22] Koreatown on 32nd Street between Fifth and Sixth Avenues,[22][23] Penn Station and Madison Square Garden on Seventh Avenue between 32nd and 34th Streets,[22] and the Flower District on 28th Street between Sixth and Seventh Avenues.[24] The nearest New York City Subway stations are 34th Street–Herald Square at Sixth Avenue and Broadway, one block west, and 33rd Street at Park Avenue, two blocks east. There is also a PATH station at 33rd Street and Sixth Avenue.[25] To the east of the Empire State Building is Murray Hill,[25] a mixed-use neighborhood with residential, commercial, and entertainment uses.[26] One block east of the Empire State Building, on Madison Avenue at 34th Street, is the New York Public Library's Science, Industry and Business Library, which is located on the same block as the CUNY Graduate Center. The library also has its main and Mid-Manhattan branches at Fifth Avenue and 40th Street, six blocks north.[25] The Morgan Library & Museum is located four blocks away, at Madison Avenue and 36th Street.[26][25]" - I found this quite hard to follow, and wasn't entirely sure what it was trying to tell the reader - I can see it is useful to know that the area contains a variety of other landmarks, but are why the details of where a public library has its subsidiary branches etc.? I think you could probably squeeze this down by half and still carry the essential information.
    • The CUNY Graduate Center is a block away. The other landmarks are further away so I deleted them. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Empire State Inc. consortium became public in August 1929" - is there any way to highlight that this about the consortium becoming a publicly listed company? The first time I read this I initially assumed it was about them becoming publicly known/visible etc. (which might just be me...!)
    • Clarified - I think what you read was actually correct. The building does trade under NYSE, but that's not what I meant initially. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "The group also purchased nearby land plots so they would" - you could easily lose the "plots" here for smoothness
    • Done.
  • "The planned 80-story building,[76] with a height of about 1,000 feet (300 m),[77] would have height limits on nearby buildings ensuring that the top fifty floors would get expansive views of the city" - the structure here is slightly awkward, as the bit running "would have height limits" is attached to the Empire State, not the nearby buildings. How about something like "As nearby buildings were subject to height restrictions, the top fifty floors of the planned 80-story building would get..."?
    • Done.
  • "Chrysler's original roof from a stubby Romanesque dome to the narrow steel spire" - we haven't mentioned the spire before, so would advise "to a narrow steel spire"
    • Done.
  • "the granite, precious metals, and wood chips used in the old hotel were not in high demand" - I found it hard to imagine precious metals not being in demand (although I could imagine, say, the price of gold, silver or platinum being relatively low); has the phrase captured this correctly?
    • The quote from the book says 'precious' metals such as lead, brass, and zinc. I modified accordingly. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company loaned Empire State Inc. some $27.5 million so the group could start construction" - "some" sounded odd; "around"? "approximately"?
  • "According to historian John Tauranac," - minor, but I know many editors would prefer "According to the historian John Tauranac", as it isn't a formal title. Doesn't bother me, but might come up at FA.
    • Done.
  • "Swedish black granite, terracotta, and brick" - I was wondering if this paragraph was underlinked? COuld be useful to link some of these materials.
    • Done, although Swedish granite doesn't have a page.
  • "half of the steel skeleton had been completed" - a thought... We're assuming here that the reader understands how a modern skyscraper works in terms of architectural support. Do we need to (briefly) explain the structural concept here?
    • I added the word "supporting" to "steel structure" and linked to steel frame. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "with several orders placed within an hour of a plan's being finalized" - "a plan being finalized" or "plans being finalized"
    • Replaced with "a plan".
  • "Hine's images provided much fodder for the media" - "fodder" felt a bit informal in an encyclopedia article
    • Replaced with "ample material for the media to report upon". That may be a bit clunky though. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "According to Jim Rasenberger, " - who is he? (e.g. an historian?)
  • "The steelworkers' sheer height enraptured onlookers" - I don't think this is quite right - the height of the steelworkers wouldn't have been much different from any other worker. "The sheer height at which the steelworkers operated enraptured onlookers"?
    • Done.
  • "Al Smith shot the final rivet, which was made of solid gold." - who's Al Smith? (he's in the infobox, but not described in the main text)
    • Alfred E. Smith. He was described in the first paragraph of "Planning Process". I just changed all the mentions to "Al Smith" since that's his common name. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "while nearby hotels also released ads that lauded their proximity" - would avoid informal contractions like "ads"
    • Done.
  • "(Technically, it was possible to build a tower of up to 2,000 feet (610 m)," - would "it was believed possible" be better, since no-one had actually done so?
    • Done.
  • would be the world's tallest building "for many years" - unclear who the quote is from
    • NY Times.
  • "2 million dollars" - why the different format...?
    • Fixed.
  • "By this time, the Empire State had been fully leased "for several years", with a "waiting list" to lease space in the building." - unclear who is being quoted here
    • Cortland Standard.
  • "That year, six news companies started a combined $600,000 annually " - started a what?
    • A Partnership. I guess this was cut off when I added the details. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "In 1961, the building was bought by Harry B. Helmsley, Lawrence A. Wien, and Wien's son-in-law Peter L. Malkin, for $65 million,[198][190] which became the new highest price for a single structure.[198] Over 3,000 people paid $10,000 for one share each in a company called Empire State Building Associates, that subletted the building to another company headed by Helmsley and Wein, raising $33 million of the funds used to pay for the change of ownership.[198][190] The land itself was sold to Prudential Insurance for $29 million." - I couldn't work out quite what this meant. Did Hemlsley, WIen and Malkin buy the building personally and then let it on to the ESBA, and the ESBA subletted it on to Hemlsley and Wein's company? And was the land sold directly to PI, or via the threesome? Couldn't work this out.
    • Yeah, it's very confusing. Helmsley and Wein owned the building but not the land. PI got the land separately. But I was a bit confused as well: the 2013 NYT article says that the shareholders paid $33 million, while the 1961 article omits the shareholders entirely. I just wrote that Helmsley et al. gained control of the building. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "The new owners" - as above, wasn't sure who these were.
    • Helmsley and Wein.
  • "create an excess of rentable space" - would "a glut of rentable space" read better? ("an excess" read oddly here, but might just be me)
    • Done, but wouldn't that be too informal of a wording? epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "The investment has been described as “an unusual move for a sovereign wealth fund”" - described by whom?
    • The Real Deal.
  • Would the cost of construction fit more naturally in the construction section, rather than architecture?
    • Moved to end of "Construction" section.
  • "Official fact sheets cite building statistics thusly" - do we have reason to suspect the fact sheets? If not, we could just state it as fact.
    • These are facts, but not the type of everyday calculations people use for buildings. I don't think a weight of 365,000 tons is going to help the ESB office building worker, but it's interesting for tourists and engineers. That's who these fact sheets are for. I can be wrong about this, though. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "The modernistic stainless steel canopies" - should there be a comma after modernistic?
    • Done.
  • You could probably usefully link gravity stress and wind load, as they're specialist terms.
    • Done.
  • "but allow the top floors to be both illuminated by sunlight" - subtle, but I wonder if the average reader will read this correctly? It's presumably saying that the light can penetrate to the interior/centre of the higher floor because their size is smaller, but I suspect that some would read this as just meaning that light can reach the outside of the building, particularly given the next sentence. "but allow sunlight to penetrate the interior of the top floors" or something like that?
    • Done.
  • "At the top of each doorway is a bronze motif of three of the "crafts or industries" used in the building's construction—Electricity, Masonry, and Heating from north to south" - I think this should just read "bronze motif of the 'crafts or industries'", otherwise it suggests that that there are three motifs on each door, rather than motifs over three doors?
    • Done.
  • "one-story tall, similarly-designed rectangular-shaped corridor" - I wasn't sure what it was similarly-designed to.
  • "Until the 1960s, the ceilings in the lobby had a shiny art deco mural inspired by both the sky and the Machine Age, until it was covered with ceiling tiles and fluorescent lighting.[259] Because the original murals, designed by an artist named Leif Neandross, were damaged, reproductions were installed. " - the sequence here was unclear. I'm presuming that the ceiling tiles etc. were added in the 1960s? If so, one of the "until"s could go. I couldn't work out when the reproductions were installed though.
    • Done. I'm trying to figure out when the reproductions were done. epicgenius (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "a work consisting of "15,000 stars and 5,000 circles" superimposed " - I don't think you need the quote marks around this bit (it isn't a creative phrase, and I can't see how it could be rephrased).
    • Done.
  • " in what was believed to be the first lawsuit filed by an organization under the then-new ADA law" - "was believed" is ambiguous; have opinions changed, or could this just be "in what was the first..."; you could safely end with "under the new law.", as you've given the 1990 date and title of the the law in the previous sentence.
    • Done.
  • "when the FCC ordered the exclusive deal broken" - "to be broken"? I wasn't certain you could "order something broken"?
    • Done.
  • "this would cause waves from the Empire State Building" - "this caused waves"? (don't think you need the conditional here)
    • Done.
  • "The stations' placement in the Empire State Building was considered "problematic" " - considered by who?
    • The Congressional report about converting Analog TV to Digital TV. epicgenius (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Eleven television stations and 22 FM stations " - MOS would ask that the comparison numbers are in a consistent style (11 and 22, or eleven and twenty-two).
    • Done.
  • "The 102nd floor observatory is completely enclosed and much smaller than the first one." - if the first one is the 86th, I think you could lose the last four words - the comparator is already pretty clear.
    • Done.
  • "The lines to enter the observation decks, according to Concierge.com, are "as legendary as the building itself". Concierge.com states that there are five lines: the sidewalk line, the lobby elevator line, the ticket purchase line, the second elevator line, and the line to get off the elevator and onto the observation deck.[288] However, New York City's official tourism website, NYCgo.com, makes note of only three lines: the security check line, the ticket purchase line, and the second elevator line." - the sources for this seem to be six years apart, so presumably things might just have changed?
    • Done.
  • "As of October 2017, tickets are $42 for adults, $32 for children, and $36 for senior citizens" - perhaps a little too much detail here?
    • Removed.
  • "The building would also be lit in the colors..." - unclear why this is in the conditional ("The building is also lit in the colors..."? Or "was also lit" if they've stopped doing it?)
    • Clarified that it is ongoing.
  • "The building's owners adhere to strict standards in using the lights; for instance, they would not use the lights to play advertisements" -ditto
    • Done.
  • "Despite the damage and loss of life, the building was open for business on many floors on the following Monday, two days later" - you could lose the "on the following Monday"
    • Done.
  • "regardless of the weather condition" - "conditions"?
    • Done.
  • "The unidentified twin-engine plane had scraped past the observation deck" - you don't need the pluperfect here, and could therefore lose the "had"
    • Done.
  • "scaring tourists there." - "scaring the tourists there."?
    • Done.
  • "22-year-old Irma P. Eberhardt " etc. - are the ages of the suicide victims necessary here? Incidentally, the level of detail in this section generally felt a bit uncomfortable to me; quoting the suicide notes and phone calls felt intrusive, for example, and not necessary for telling the story of the ESB.
    • I removed the excessive detail. epicgenius (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Police found his shoes 50 feet" - metric equivalent needed
    • Done.
  • "most of whom were hit by fragments" - fragments of...?
    • Bullets.
  • "the Empire State Building was immediately an icon of the city " - "immediately became" might be more natural
    • Done.
  • "Time magazine called the building a way that "you know that you’re in New York City"" - the structure implies this was when it was first built - worth adding the date for the quote
    • I replaced with a new quote. epicgenius (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "John Tauranac calls the tower..." - Tauranac is...?
    • A historian, although this was also mentioned above. epicgenius (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Benjamin Flowers..." ditto
  • "Meanwhile, BBC News' culture section referred to the building as an "icon of American design".[326]" - rather than focus on the BBC News (who aren't particularly well known as architecture critics) I'd focus on the author, Jonathan Glancey, who is.
    • Done.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

  • See also section - worth checking that you're not repeating links here that have been used above - the first one certainly has, for example. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

  • "from an airplane up to 100 miles (160 km) away" - is still accurate? (planes now fly higher than in 1930?) Hchc2009 (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Removed, this is basically trivia.
  • "(equivalent to $644,878,000 in 2016)." - You're using the CPI here, which isn't appropriate for skyscrapers. You'll need to reset the US tag to US-NGDPPC, which will give a more accurate result. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "He killed one person and wounded six others, supposedly in response to events happening in Palestine and Israel, before committing suicide." - the reference only says that he asked people if they came from Egypt, and doesn't mention anything more about his motivation. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I added a reference that mentions motivation. epicgenius (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

  • History section, "Site" - I thought this went into excessive detail. We've got 900 odd words or so here giving the history of the site before the Empire State building is actually built, much of which doesn't seem to tell us much about what then happens next (e.g. does the reader need to know that a pond was polluted near the site in the 1820s?). There's an existing article on the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel as well. I'd strongly advise trimming this down into a single paragraph on the "pre-history" and a single paragraph on the Waldorf-Astoria - you'd then be bringing the reader right into the heart of the action with the next section. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I trimmed the "Site" section to 2 paragraphs. The Waldorf-Astoria part is important for the backstory of the Empire State Building. Not sure about the previous land-ownership part, though. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

  • Appears neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

  • The article is stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

  • File:Waldorf Hotel 1893.jpg needs a publication date (i.e. when/where was it originally published?) to justify the US tag.
    • Removed, since I've trimmed the "site" section.
  • File:New York Bldg. Height Comparison.svg needs a source for the heights (either added to the file itself, or as a citation in the article).
    • Sources added to file.
  • File:Building and ship comparison to the Pentagon2.svg (ditto) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    • This is a template. I will add sources a little later. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

@Hchc2009: I have fixed almost all the issues you outlined above. I have concerns about the "fact sheets" thing so I haven't fixed it yet. epicgenius (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@Hchc2009: It's been a week since you last commented here. Do you have any further feedback? epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Additional information about Mohawk ironworkers

Hi editors!

I want to add more information about the Mohawk Ironworkers that are mentioned in the history/construction section. The two new paragraphs should follow: "The project involved more than 3,500 workers at its peak,[1] including 3,439 on a single day, August 14, 1930.[114] Many of the workers were Irish and Italian immigrants." here is my proposed edit:

New paragraph:

Mohawk Ironworkers from the Kahnawà:ke (Kahnawake) reservation also made up a sizable minority of those working on the construction of the Empire State Building. In fact, large portions of Kahnawà:ke Mohawks have practiced ironwork since 1880 and continue into the present [1]. Today, about 200 Mohawk ironworkers are employed in the New York area, out of 2,000 structural ironworkers, according to the union. Most still travel home on weekends to Kahnawà:ke near the border of Canada and New York State by the St. Lawrence River [2].

Mohawk ironworkers have made significant contributions to American Cultural icons such as the Empire State Building. The role of Mohawk ironworkers from Kahnawà:ke in constructing the post-industrial skyline in New York City and across North America has been romanticized for decades. [3]. Their image as “sky walkers” has lead to the idea that they have assimilated into United States culture (See Cultural assimilation of Native Americans). However, Mohawk people from Kahnawà:ke have historically “Insisted on being and acting as peoples who belong to an autonomous nation that is not the United States or Canada” [4]

Egibble (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Blanchard, David. High Steel! The Kahnawake Mohawk and the High Construction Trade. 1983.https://search.proquest.com/openview/a83c4b5ede420255da3ec2553dacae43/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1821393
  2. ^ Nessen, Stephen. Sky Walking: Raising Steel, A Mohawk Ironworker Keeps Tradition Alive. 2012. WNYC. http://www.wnyc.org/story/192807-sky-walking-raising-steel-mohawk-ironworker-keeps-tradition-alive/
  3. ^ Elmes, Micheal. Resisting in High Places: A Study of First Nation Mohawk Ironworkers. 2017. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Elmes/publication/228687046_Resisting_in_High_Places_A_Study_of_First_Nation_Mohawk_Ironworkers/links/0912f5138becb7d3d8000000/Resisting-in-High-Places-A-Study-of-First-Nation-Mohawk-Ironworkers.pdf
  4. ^ Simpson, Audra. Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life Across the Border of Settler States. 2014. Duke University Press. https://www.dukeupress.edu/Mohawk-Interruptus/
Not done: The proposed text is more relevant to the Kahnawake page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Empire State 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Inflation adjusted price

When I use inflation calculators, I end up receiving a different value for the inflation adjusted price of the empire state building, usually in the ballpark of $500-600 million. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ The above site puts the inflation figure at 1377.1% when comparing 1930 prices to 2016 prices, which would put the value of the empire state building at $600 million. 71.11.191.21 (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Empire State 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Question

"The elevators were mechanically operated until 2011, when they were replaced with digital elevators during a $550 million elevator replacement project." I think the 550 million figure refers to the overall renovations not just the elevators. I think it should be rephrased. $550 million in elevators as a rule of thumb is just too much. Thank you Triplecaña (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. That ranks as a typo, as the cited source says "final phase of a $550 million renovation project." (emphasis added) Hertz1888 (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I have fixed it. The $550 million building renovation is mentioned twice in the article. I must have misread it originally. epicgenius (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

English Stone

The building is partially clad in stone from the Wirral opposite Liverpool. This needs to be mentioned. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1TKDD_from-storeton-to-new-york?guid=bbd37570-eba2-466b-8b14-ef19338ad7ad 90.196.212.150 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

While that's true, I don't know why this fact should be prioritized over anything else. The article already says the materials for the building came from far and wide, even with some examples. epicgenius (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
It's also cited in the Storeton/Stourton Quarries article although apparently those quarries produced sandstone while the building is clad in limestone. CastWider (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Inaccuracy not borne out by cited reference

This text "370 short tons (330 long tons) of steel" is clearly wrong as it contradicts a previous statement that the building was constructed with over 57,000 tons of steel and that the exterior includes 730 tons of aluminum and steel. The word 'tons' only occurs twice in the cited article and neither has this weight of steel attached to it. This claim should be stricken. If the weight of steel is required then perhaps the previous value from earlier in the article should be used? Chann94501 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I have fixed it. This was a typo (source does say 730 tons, rather than 370), compounded by a lack of clarity. Thanks for bringing this up. epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2018

Grammar error / "extra" word: "Building was a for a" which should be "Building was for a" 128.234.24.244 (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Consignement

Take note that this aricle is only useful if useful information is provided. Citing other notables leaves little doubt that the article is anywhere near acurate. As for lodging and business done there, be mindful of the stasis at which ownership takes place, then feel free to restablish or establish your opion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:DFC0:6:7D8F:2108:C1D9:2C07 (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

New Entrance

A series of recent edits modified the building's address from 350 Fifth Avenue, to 20 West 34th. In reviewing the source, as well as several others, I believe the 34th Street address is the observatory entrance only and not the building's official entrance or address. Tenants will still enter at 350 Fifth. In support of this proposition: 1) Empire State Realty Trust, which owns the building, still shows the address at 350 Fifth. Empire Realty Trust-Empire State Building; 2) Various news reports also identify the 34th Street location as the observatory entrance. 6SqFt: Empire State Building Reveals its New Deco Inspired Obvservatory Entrance. Finally, while the source the editor provided doesn't itself specify it as just the observatory entrance, it alludes to it: "Beginning Thursday, visitors to the 87-year-old building will enter at 20 West 34th St., around the corner from the old 350 Fifth Ave. entrance". It indicates this is the visitor entrance. This would be, presumably, in contrast to the tenant entrance. Malkin said, "Our leadership in innovation continues with this transformative reinforced of our entrance, the first phase of the completely new Observatory experience”, which also seems to imply the entrance relates to the observatory. I'm pretty convinced 350 is still the address of the building. Anyone feel otherwise? ButtonwoodTree (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@ButtonwoodTree: Well, according to the Department of Buildings, both 350 Fifth Avenue and 20 W 34th Street are correct. I will clarify this in the article shortly. epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Empire State Building 417 yards high, Former 1 World Trade Center 417 meters high

It should be pointed out that the height of the Empire State Building of 1,250 feet is converted to 417 yards high. 'Coincidentally', the Former 1 World Trade Center which replaced the Empire State Building as the tallest building in the world was 417 meters high. 129.171.233.86 (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The floors in the mooring mast. Real floors?

Everyone says that the ESB has 102 floors. The 86th floor is the highest concrete floor in the building, while the interior of the mooring mast contains a long staircase & elevator shaft. The floors in the mast do exist but they're only metal grills. If you drop something it might fall all the way through the mast until it reaches concrete. This is how they change the light bulbs inside that make it glow - walking on the grill. Are these metal grills floors REAL FLOORS? If the answer is yes, then it is right to say that the ESB has 102 floors and that the 1 World Trade Center tower has 104 floors etc....I think that it is an important question.

The 87th is solid because it's the roof of the 86th. All the 80s might be solid, indoor observatory might be 102 after all. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

However also in this photo (https://www.pinterest.it/pin/49680402110543264/) the real floors seem to be max 97. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.190.131 (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

That may have been the 1930s. It'd be inconvenient to have to climb a ladder to change some of those light bulbs. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2019

Storeys is spelled wrongly (written as "Stories" in the article) Jacksonmahr1 (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

As this is an article about an American topic, Wikipedia uses American spelling - "stories." An article on a British subject would use "storeys." Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jacksonmahr1: just to expand a bit, one of our site style guides is WP:ENGVAR, which says we should use whatever national spellings are appropriate for the article subject. Both spellings are "correct" in certain contexts or nationalities (just like you will find either "color" or "colour" used in different articles). DMacks (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the info, I understand, although you really need to pick one style - this might be OK for buildings in America, but how do you determine this for people? If you write an article about an American citizen, then that person moves to the UK and gets British citizenship, do you change the style? What if your article is about a french company that is taken over by a German company?

If an American author is writing an article about a Danish soccer player who lives in and plays for a team in Spain? When if a British author adds more info the the article? These are different languages and countries, so if you're describing the colour of his hair do you spell the colour with or without a U? I'm confused by who determines appropriateness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksonmahr1 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

If there's no clear-cut "identity", then it's based on however the article was first written. Because neither one is "wrong"--just "not what you're used to seeing, depending where you are from"--there could never be a consensus for a universal choice for wikipedia as a whole. So WP has consensus not to take sides (neither a preference overall, nor an allowance for switching once an article exists) for articles that do not have national ties. See that ENGVAR link for the full guideline. DMacks (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2019

Add to 'In popular culture' section:

The 1767-piece LEGO Architecture Set, Empire State Building (Set Number 21046) is a model of this building, released in 2019. HomeImprover (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: That section is only a very brief overview, and I don't think this is significant enough for inclusion in that overview. I see you've already added this information to Empire State Building in popular culture, where it's a much better fit. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Mistakes. Inconsistency within Wikipedia. Empire is 7th in NYC and 9th in USA.

First paragraph of intro, penultimate sentence:

"As of 2019, the building is the seventh-tallest building in New York City, the sixth-tallest completed skyscraper in the United States, and the 45th-tallest in the world. It is also the sixth-tallest freestanding structure in the Americas. "

Should be 7th in NYC and 9th overall in USA according to the NYC and US tallest buildings articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.208.153 (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  • There is no inconsistency. It's still the sixth tallest completed building in the US. Central Park Tower, 111 West 57th, and One Vanderbilt are still under construction. epicgenius (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2020

Please add the following to the History - 21st Century section "On 20th July 2014, The Empire State Building was awarded platinum level Wired Certification from WiredScore on account of its digital connectivity." WiredScore (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Unsourced, promotional. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2020

pls add or if you can fix the grammar, thank you. Write "On March 2020 during 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, The building glare a red light for intended to thank emergency workers and people on New York were anxiety and panic when the glaring light appears thinking that the country might be in emergency.[1]" 134.249.159.83 (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's difficult to even decipher what you mean exactly. However, this is just a facet of the current domination of the news cycle and doesn't really belong in the article anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://nypost.com/2020/03/31/new-yorkers-baffled-over-unsettling-empire-state-building-siren-display/

Empire State Building is 417 yards (416.66) high

This article should include the Empire State Building's height in yards: 417 (416.66). 'Coincidentally', the former 1 World Trade Center was 417 meters tall. 73.85.203.14 (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

We'd need a reliable source reference to help us see the significance of this coincidence. Humans are primed to see patterns that are coincidences, but "fun facts trivia" aren't really in scope for an encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Years of tallest building.

As of doing some work on the swedish version I found that the years of being the tallest building was different in the english and swedish infobox. I did some reesearch and it seems to me that the problem has to do with the definition wich seems unclear. Is it antenna, no antenna, does only completed buildings count? For instance, here is one source (at least i regard reuters as a good one) suggenting the final year to be 1972 opposed to wikipedias 1970. 

  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-worldtradecenter-newyork/empire-state-building-about-to-lose-status-as-tallest-in-nyc-idUSBRE83N1FZ20120424

Maybe it is only unclear to me, but it may be worth a mention, or at least a discussion here if there are people more invested and knowlegeble in the subject than me. Tobbe s 97 (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that the page History of the tallest skyscrapers says 1972, as well as the italian version (at the very bottom) witch is considered a good article. Tobbe s 97 (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Tobbe s 97, the other articles are wrong. 1972 is the topping out date for the entire World Trade Center complex. However, the height of the first WTC tower passed that of the Empire State Building in 1970, despite not being complete. The roof height of the first WTC tower, at 1,368 feet, is taller than the entirety of the Empire State Building. The other articles seem to mention only completed buildings. epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2020

Page says "The Empire State Building stood as the world's tallest building until the construction of the World Trade Center in 1970; following the its collapse in the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Empire State Building was again the city's tallest skyscraper until 2012."

Should be: "The Empire State Building stood as the world's tallest building until the construction of the World Trade Center in 1970; following its collapse in the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Empire State Building was again the city's tallest skyscraper until 2012. 2601:281:8100:6B40:8049:FF45:C306:F190 (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. ɱ (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

136.49.211.114 (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request

I think that the caption "The building, tallest in New York, from 2001 to 2012, seen here in 2010" is confusing. Could it be changed to "The building, which was the tallest building in New York from 2001 to 2012, is seen here in 2010"? Thanks. 136.49.211.114 (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Airships in sky near almost-completed Building

This photo is in the article: File:Zeppelin bij Empire State Building in aanbouw - Zeppelin near the Empire State Building under construction (6943970242).jpg. From Netherlands archive.

Copyright is fine, I just want to know if it is a true photo, not altered to show airships in the sky. - - Prairieplant (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Even if it is, it's fine. I added the photo to the article to show the building under construction; if proven to be doctored at the time it only adds intrigue to the image, a historic artifact to show what was important at the time. ɱ (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2021

In the first paragraph the article states "As of 2020, the building is the seventh-tallest building in New York City, the ninth-tallest completed skyscraper in the United States, the 48th-tallest in the world, and the fifth-tallest freestanding structure in the Americas". This however should read either ..."sixth-tallest freestanding structure in the Americas, or "fifth-tallest freestanding structure in the United States", as the CN Tower in Toronto Canada is taller (as shown on the currently linked wiki page) making it the 6th tallest free standing structure in the Americas. [1] [2] BCArmillaria (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_freestanding_structures
  2. ^ https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=37019257

Setbacks don't make sense

33rd and 34th Streets were 2 times districts and 60 and 100 feet wide. Fifth was a 1 and quarter times district and 100 feet wide. So it should be 10 and 10.416 average office floors for 33rd and 5th and 16.6667 on 34th. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Or 10 and 16 in whole numbers, maybe 17 if you make them a few inches short. Or 12 and 20 if you make them average residential floor height. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Empire State Building 417 yards high & 1 World Trade Center 417 meters high Encodes Jesus Birthday of 4/17 (6 BC)

This needs to be added to this article... "Freemasons encode everything" - two programs on History Channel The Empire State Building is 1250 feet/417 yards high. This encodes Jesus' actual Birthday of Saturday/Sabbath 4/17/6 BC (see astronomer http://MichaelMolnar.com ). 'Coincidentally', the original 1 World Trade Center North Tower was 1,368 feet/417 meters high as is the new 1 World Trade Center minus its 408 feet antenna/tower. Otherwise, 1 WTC/'Freedom Tower' is symbolically 1,776 feet high. 2601:589:4800:9090:1835:E368:900E:D8C3 (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

You're going to need to provide a source to indicate that it was done on purpose, not by sheer coincidence. Acroterion (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 U.S.S. Los Angeles

The U.S.S. Los Angeles or the ZR-3 was a rigid airship built by the Zeppelin company in Germany it was NOT a blimp..... 2600:6C50:757F:F257:A9E4:83C5:1623:4D7A (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Read the image caption again. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn't the first "Empire State Building" in town

640 Broadway had the same name. [[User:Rickyrab2|Rickyrab (2nd account)!]] | [[Talk:Rickyrab2| yada yada yada]] (old page: [[User:Rickyrab]]) (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

"640 Broadway[2] was called the Empire State Bank Building in honor of the property's former tenant." Similar, but not identical. Firebrace (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Height

"As of 2020, the building is the seventh-tallest building in New York City, . . . and the sixth-tallest freestanding structure in the Americas." I assume that this is due to some mix of measurement criteria (with or without mast, etc.) but it needs explanation in the text or else it is nonsense. Cross Reference (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2021

The link for citation 42 is broken and needs to be fixed. The correct link cannot be easily found and a new citation is likely needed. Brittneyr (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Citation 42 seems to work fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2021

Change "Pfer" to "Per" in the third sentence of the section entitled "Structural Features".

Per the final specifications of the building, the corridor is surrounded in turn by office space 28 feet (8.5 m) deep, maximizing office space at a time before air conditioning became commonplace. MPascale (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Deaths in construction

There are two references to 42 deaths. Do both claim the 42 is wrong? Can someone provide copies of the relevant pages? 151.210.135.51 (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Notes and references

I don't think it's really necessary to have three or four top-level headers about notes and references. There was previously 1 top-level header for that topic, in addition to the 9 top-level headers for the rest of the article; these edits created two and three more, respectively. Footnotes are considered a subset of references, per MOS:NOTES, so they should be treated accordingly. There's no reason why notes, citations, and sources should all have their own header, since they are part of the same thing, like the exterior and interior design sections. (However, I see MOS:NOTES indicates that further reading is indeed not part of references, so I have left that as its own section.) – Epicgenius (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that sources, bibliography, and notes are generally placed as subsections of the "References" section on Wikipedia, and should be here, while "Further reading" should be placed outside that section. ɱ (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Are some parts of the Empire State Building actually clad in sandstone from Wirral, UK?

Was Storeton Sandstone from the Wirral, UK used for some small parts of the Empire State building or is this an urban myth? The Higher Bebington White Freestone Quarry - which closed in 1959 - was the last producer of this fine quality lighter sandstone. This highly regarded stone from the Storeton area had been quarried since the Roman period. Sources state the outside of the Empire State building was clad in Indiana Limestone (which makes commercial sense because it's cheaper to transport overland by rail the majority of building materials than transshipping it across continents), without mention of any Cheshire stone being used (or was the amount so small sources ignore this because it was negligible amount?).

Doing a search for details behind this fact shows it is repeated many times, however, what is never revealed (aside from it being said to have been used) is where it was actually put? Or how much was ordered? I like to think this is true but there is no hard evidence aside from saying it was used, which is frustrating. Are there any Empire State manifests that could show the ordering details for the building's construction? 146.200.202.126 (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

re 'Elevators'

" ... mechanically operated ... "? Aren't all elevators in bldgs? Should the wordage be 'manually operated'? 149.20.203.67 (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Empire_State_Building/Archive_2&oldid=1211615260"