Talk:Park Tower and Mall

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chicago

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool based on the length of the article. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Is there a citation or reference to the original plan to include three towers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.44.153 (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revert[edit]

I performed this revert as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a collection of every single detail that currently applies to residents of a building. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Most" is a Weasel word. Why do you insist on including it? I'm trying to add facts as documented in the listed source(s).

Do you work for this building? You appear to keep removing anything that could be considered critical of it.

Wikipedia attempts to maintain a NPOV. The management company and unit owners trying to sell are happy to just list amenities unqualified. Wikipedia should also note which amenities are not free and when there are additional (potentially hidden/undisclosed) charges.

WP:NOT says nothing about buildings. What specifically do you think applies here? If someone tried to list in this article the ownership percentage of each unit in the building, then WP:NOT would apply. A list of amenities noting potential downsides? Not even close.

Your comment "This is way too much specific detail for an encyclopedia article about a building" is laughable. Have you seen any other Wikipedia articles about buildings? Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), for example, has entire sections labeled "Restaurants" and "Spa". Including this information as part of a longer sentence in this article is certainly not too much detail. Please apply your pruning to all of the articles linked to from List of tallest buildings in Chicago before you remove any more information from this one.

Thank you. Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 23:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF and you'll note my long edit history suggests I haver nothing to do with this building. (Given your focus, I do encourage you to review WP:SPA to ensure no WP:COI exists in your own case). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, no matter how factual. We don't need to list prices & rates for particular ammenities in particular buildings. We need to be encyclopedic. You really seem to be pushing an agenda here, if anyone is. Please stop and think about the purpose of this website. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that "other stuff exists" is rarely a good argument, and what you point to at the Trump building at least is largely supported by independent reliable sources that help confirm the notability of various amenities. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

Have secondary sources noted this information? If so, then I would be inclined to believe that it may be appropriate to include it in the article (this presumes the secondary sources aren't real estate sites or otherwise promotional). If not, then I would agree with Zim that the information they removed is not significant enough for inclusion. Hope this is helpful! DonIago (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if there are reliable sources that confirm the particular notability of the pricing structure of these amenities in this building, then specific mention could be justifiable. That's part of why media coverage of the spa in a new Trump building is notable, but the mere existence of tenet charges for cable or access to a party room isn't inherently notable for random buildings. I'll adjust the text back to a reasonable mention of these amenities and that fact that not all are free of charge. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]