Talk:McCarthy Building (Chicago, Illinois)

Image count

Does this article really need three pictures of modern buildings which merely happen to stand on the same location as the McCarthy Building used to? I can understand having one, as it seems that the construction of modern offices was a major driver behind the demolition of the McCarthy Building, but three seems a bit excessive. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for overlooking the talk page note here. Thanks for calling my attention to it. The three pictures show the view of the replacement building from the east, west and the sky (as noted in my reversion edit summary). They are not redundant. I wish we had as many view of the old building. Due to the emotional issues involved in the demolition of the building and all of Block 37, I thought it might be more informative to get a total perspective of the replacement building. If you only want to include one picture of the new building, then the proper one would be from the same view as the old building however. In many of the articles on buildings under construction, I tend to include numerous pictures. See buildings like Trump Chicago, One Museum Park, Joffrey Tower. Galleries are now permissible again so this is not a big problem. Let me know what you think.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely it's right to have multiple pictures of a building in the article about that building. For example, the several pictures in the article on 108 North State Street add considerably to it. I agree it's a shame that there aren't more photos of the McCarthy Building. My concern here, though, is that there's a danger of the actual subject of the article getting swamped. With three modern pictures, it looks like the only important thing about the McCarthy Building is what replaced it, which I'm sure is not a position that those who campaigned against its demolition would take. If there was only one photo available of Bill Clinton, would it be appropriate to illustrate his article with three pictures of George W. Bush?

I'll happily bow to your expert judgement on which picture to use, and if you really strongly feel that all three should stay in, I'll not stand in your way - you're the subject expert. But I genuinely believe this is a more balanced article with just one.--OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I just think this is an extreme case of urban renewal, where in attempt to modernize downtown a Chicago Landmark built by Chicago's first architect, John M. Van Osdel was delandmarked and demolished. I think that given the hysteria surrounding its demolition and then the numerous trials and tribulations on what would replace it people should be given a good look at what did replace it. It may be more appropriate to move two images to a gallery at the bottom. However, since this article is so short, I just put them on a sidebar of sorts. How about putting the image I prefer on the left in the article and adding the other two to a gallery at the bottom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 14:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm always open to compromise. Go ahead and make the changes (I'd do it myself but I'm not certain which of the pictures you preferred). --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I added back the pictures in a gallery, but I actually feel that with this short of an article if you are going to have the 4 pics it looked better before. I will leave as a gallery, but am interested in your comments.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 22:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was about to delete the gallery myself, until I realized that there was a discussion about it here. A gallery with zero photos of the article subject should clearly be deleted. One photo of the new building is enough.
--JKeene 16:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McCarthy Building (Chicago, Illinois). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725174455/http://hometown.aol.com/citypan/indexblock371.html to http://hometown.aol.com/citypan/indexblock371.html

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

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) 22:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)