Talk:Flatiron Building/Archive 1

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

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

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

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


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

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

Too many photos, and too many external links?
There are a lot of photos in this particular article. Do we need all of them?

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


 * The balance of photos in the article is good. They show: the overall building, details of it, the building under construction, the building in the context of the area it's in, and for good measure an artistic interpretation of the bulding. I think that's just fine. There were plenty other good pictures I could have added, but I refrained from doing so because these are a good mix and don't overwhelm the article, especially in a gallery at the bottom, rather than running down the side. As for removing the links -- why?  They're legitimate sites with good content relevant to the subject.  The fact that they contain photographs is irrelevant.  I would never say "Hey look at all of these external links, they all have text in them -- don't we have enough text?" Visual images are a legitimate conduit of information, no better or worse than text.  Let's leave those three little links alone, since there's no legitimate reason for removing them.  Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  05:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, about Commons -- I agree that we should use Commons photos in the articles, and indeed all the photos there are from the Commons, but there are plenty of reasons why not all visual or graphic images are able to be uploaded to the Commons, so limiting oneself to them is... well, limiting. BTW, whenever did 3 links get to be considered to be "too many"? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  05:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the quality of the links, not their number I object to. Perhaps I should have said too many poor quality links.  Merely pointing at more webpages with photos seems like a less than useful link.    It's an iconic building and we have plenty of great photos for it.   Why are we linking to more?  I'm thinking of External_links and NOT when I say I'd rather see links to more authoritative external sources.dm (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I dispute that the quality of the photos is poor. One, in particular, is extremely good. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  06:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


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


 * BTW, when you reverted my change, you put the broken "Shorpy" link back in. I'll let you clean that up since you didnt like my other changes. dm (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The link works fine. It's not broken.  Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  07:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, something odd with it. Under Safari, even though it claims to be a jpg, it goes to a page not found.  If you reload, you get it. Under Firefox, it pops up the jpg.  I'll assume it's a Safari bug.  Sorry for the confusion there. dm (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the newyorkbirds.free.fr link because it was part of massive cross wiki spam. I had requested the link to be blacklisted on Meta, and now it is blacklisted. If you want to have the link in this article you will have to seek local whitelisting here on en.wikipedia. --Jorunn (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me how to do that? I'd appreciate it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can seek local whitelisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. --Jorunn (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I don't think I'd do it for here, but I transferred that link to Flatiron District and I might want to try it for there. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  13:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo credits
I provided the link to "tips for describing pictures", which clearly states that image credits should only be included if the photographer is notable. Daryl Samuel, a Wikipedia user, doesn't quite meet this criteria. Also regarding the photographer, not all of this information needs to be included in the caption. Mr Fitzgerald responds with "it's pretty much universal". Thoughts, anyone? - Dudesleeper | Talk  15:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Several considerations are relevant here. First, the Manual of Style is, as it clearly states, a  guideline .  It is not dogma to be slavishly followed.  Further, the section described provides "tips", and says that "generally" credit for non-notable photographers is given on the talk page.  These words clearly undermine the claim that this practice is mandatory. In the real world, whenever possible, crediting for photographs is done in close proximity to the picture itself.  Certainly in the situation where room for a caption is provided, which is the case on Wikipedia (and these are captions, i.e. descriptions of the photograph, not "tags"), there is no excuse for not providing credit in the same place, especially when the photograph is not public domain, but has been uploaded to the Commons with the caveat that attibution be given.  To bury this attribution on a separate page that most users of a page will never visit seems like a clear violation of the terms of the picture's uploading - in spirit, surely, if not absolutely.  I see no reason why the credit should be removed, since it is non-instrusive (in small type) and not prohibited. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  16:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do find it intrusive, and your claim that there is "room for a caption is provided" is a little weak. As someone who hasn't felt the need to state his ownership on his multitude of images in use across Wikipedia, I will continue to follow the guideline set out. - Dudesleeper | Talk  20:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. I have been uploading a few pictures every week, since I got a camera in October.  None are credited to me in the article.  Not even in the talk page.  It's the same as for words; we don't get credit in the article, and most readers will have no idea who wrote the words or took the pictures in the article.  Those few who care, can look it up.  Real world is different from Wikipedia?  Yes, there are good reasons for the differences.  Jim.henderson (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is becoming, and should aim to become, the de facto standard entry reference work on the web. As such, there really is no longer much room for Wikipedia to pretend that it's not part of the real world – it is. As for your words - every edit is "credited" in the history of a page, but ultimately the difference is that the text of this encyclopedia is, by design, a collective effort, and for that reason no individual credit is given. A photograph is different, it's an objectin and of itself, and, just like the facts included in an article, which are supposed to be (but rarely are) credited to their source via a citation, photographs should be credited to their creator, if that's the condition under which they've been uploaded. That brings up a possible compromise. What if I were to move the photo credit down to a footnote, that seems to me to be conceptually about halfway between the talk page and the photo caption -- how would that sit? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  04:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ed, comments like "clear violation of the terms of the pictures uploading" (even though its licensed under GFDL) is enough for me to say, remove the image, especially a fuzzy relatively low resolution scan of an 8 year old photograph like the one by Darryl Samuel.   I'm really having a hard time understanding your thoughts around the images and links to images on this page.  I'm assuming good faith, but I'm starting to feel a strong sense that you should read WP:OWN.  Calling the MOS a guideline is correct, but you havent given much of a reason why you are deviating from it.  I dont think there should be attribution in a footnote either, IMHO.  dm (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please continue to assume good faith -- and I'm entirely aware of WP:OWN. I'm a little perplexed why you're perplexed. Someone uploads a photo with the requirement - perfectly within the rules - that it be used with attribution, and you don't see that putting that attribution on another page that almost no one is going to look at, when there is space available (readily available) right where the photo is used, is, at least in spirit, a breach of the understanding under which the photo was shared with the community? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  05:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a contentious topic that has been discussed countless times on Wikipedia. The consensus is that photographers are attributed on the image pages, not within the article. Like in many books, where you'll find the photographer credits all together at the end. (If at all...!) Otherwise, we could equally well start crediting all the text contributors in a section at the bottom of each article. Lupo 11:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide evidence that the uploader wants his name credited directly under the image in the article? Not that it would mean it would be permitted, but it would help us understand why you're so persistent. - Dudesleeper | Talk  11:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that this discussion should go on for so long in the talk page for an article about a building, rather than in a more general forum, for example one about photography in New York. Anyway, down to substance, the link seems to cover the question pretty well with the intent that everything in the article contribute to the article. Being fair to us authors isn't what it's about; we are only here to serve the readers.
 * If photographers or other authors wish to impose conditions that are fair to them, then the proper thing is to omit the work, if the article is not about the author.
 * Do pictures differ from other works such as paragraphs or other prose? Yes, in some ways, but not in this regard, far as I see.  Yes, a picture generally has only one author, while a paragraph may have many, and the image page takes care of that question properly.
 * Is a photograph an object in itself? Eh?  It's a lot of ones and zeros, same as anything else in Wikipedia.
 * Does the rule absolutely without exceptions forbid mentioning the author in a caption or footnone or the body of the article? No, there can be exceptions, for example a picture by a notable photographer, but I don't see that the present article has any pictures that call for an exception.
 * Is Wikipedia replacing Britannica and its ilk as the world's standard reference work? Perhaps, but be that as it may, it doesn't either make the rule bad or call for an exception in this case.

I hope some of us photo bugs can get together in the Wikimedia New York Chapter meeting a couple weeks from now and discuss this and other questions, even though this particular question seems rather an open and shut case. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Steichen is indisputably a notable photographer. And the 1's and 0's arguement is, frankly, pretty damn silly: a table and an onion are both made out of atoms and molecules, which doesn't help us in the least when deciding which one is furniture and which one is a vegetable, because it's at a totally different level of reality -- and yet furniture and vegetables exist as different categories of things. Be that as it may, I can see I'm not going to prevail in this argument against this kind of entrenched viewpoint, so with my last registration of protest that the rule is a bad one and does not serve Wikipedia well, I bow to this reality.  I'll remove the credit. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I doff my hat to you. - Dudesleeper | Talk  12:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam link
I took out the link to the photography website for a couple reasons. For these reasons, the link is completely unacceptable and I may go ahead and get it added to the spam blacklist. --Aude (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) We already have our own gallery here and linked to the Commons gallery.  The link does not add much value beyond what we already have.
 * 2) It's a commercial site, with the site owner clearly wanting to sell his photos.  Why favor his site over the countless other similar sites?  Wikipedia shouldn't be doing that.
 * 3) Most important reason of all: The link has been repeatedly spammed on numerous pages.  I took out approximately a dozen of these links today, on various pages about NYC and DC.  See here as an example diff of how these links were added.  His edit summary was "added architectural landmarks", with the edit including an additional sentence. However, he always also sneaks in his link (under a false edit summary).  That edit was back in July, and I had reverted it then. So sorry I haven't watch the pages closely enough to catch this sooner. This morning I found the link again on a page, and saw the link had been re-added on numerous other pages. Looking at the edit history of that page, I see it was re-added shortly after I took it out, by a new user. (a sock)  This time, his edit summary was "notable buldings - grammatical error".  In reality, his edit had nothing to do with any grammatical errors or notable buildings.  He simply re-added the link and apparently continues to do this. - Special:Contributions/Czenkaj as recently as last week.


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


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


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

Steichen photo
Why is a sloppily tinted version of Edward Steichen's superb b/w photo of the flatiron being used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.116.132 (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the Steichen photo. See this page, where it says:"Steichen added color to the platinum print that forms the foundation of this photograph by using layers of pigment suspended in a light-sensitive solution of gum arabic and potassium bichromate. Together with two variant prints in other colors, also in the Museum's collection, The Flatiron is the quintessential chromatic study of twilight. Clearly indebted in its composition to the Japanese woodcuts that were in vogue at the turn of the century and, in its coloristic effect, to the Nocturnes of Whistler, this picture is a prime example of the conscious effort of the conscious effort of photographers in the circle of Alfred Stieglitz to assert the artistic potential of their medium." Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ad Banner
I agree that the advertising banner would elicit protest regardless of the advertiser, but I believe we should mention that it was H&M, saving readers the trouble of going to the footnote, clicking on the link, and reading the NYT article to find out who it was. I was curious. I'm sure others are as well. --Nricardo (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a detail that's irrelevant to the idea being presented. Anyone curious can find out the details fairly easily, but there's no reason to slow down the general reader by clogging the sentence with stuff that doesn't add anything.  Besides, you really think that hordes of readers are going to read that sentence and say to themselves "Hmm, I wonder what advertiser that banner was for?"  I don't. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do think that. --Nricardo (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest removal of "In popular culture"
So far, the section contains two comics, two movies, a videogame and a documentary. I believe these references are pointless. See http://xkcd.com/446/ Ratfox (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

...And today, six months later, nobody answered and the list has grown to three comics, three movies, two TV series, a videogame and a documentary. I do not think this adds anything to the article. I will remove it now; if somebody really think this is necessary, just put it back... Ratfox (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am assuming that, if Ratfox did indeed remove this section then it was later replaced, as 6 years on it's certainly there! Someone clearly thought it worthwhile, but can find no written justification on this Talk page. I think there does need to be some discussion of what is and isn't noteworthy.

The bulk of the popular culture references do give some social 'context' for the building. However the part about the Lego model (moved there from another section by Beyond_My_Ken, but originally written by someone else) seems never to have been properly referenced, and without more information seems trivial?

Additionally, I'd appreciate some community opinion on my edit regarding Matt Parker's video on (among other things) the mathematics of the building. It seemed interesting, and sufficiently 'popular' culture (he is considered notable enough to have a Wikipedia page himself). I wasn't trying to use Youtube to reference a fact -- I know that it's considered an unreliable source -- rather, the video existing was itself the fact. Obviously I'd appreciate David_J_Johnson's thoughts specifically. greymullet (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The Flatiron Building
Adam Mackay Ganson (1862- ?), who emigrated from Scotland in 1862, was credited with being the George A, Fuller Company's Superintendent of Construction for the Flatiron Building...in the parlance of the industry.."He built it". He and his wife, Maria Bull Ganson (daughter of the famous surgeon and scientist, George Joseph Bull) lived on Hamilton Avenue in New Rochelle. Adam is also said to have built the "Realty", "Pennsylvania Terminal", the "Trinity", and the "Trinity Annex Buildings", all for the George a. Fuller Company. The george A. Fuller Co. was considered to be the pioneer of the modern steel skeleton building. ````David C. Garcelon April 17, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.107.74 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Broken Page
The right side of the page is broken on Safari as of revision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flatiron_Building&oldid=284210412

It seems related to a double curly bracket being deleted but not replaced. I'd fix it, but don't know how to!

Renduy (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well...I had to turn off the embedding for the box, but it renders correctly again... CSZero (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect causality
Re: The neighborhood around the building is called the Flatiron District after its signature building, which has become an icon of New York.

The building is named after the neighborhood, not the other way around -- it was the Flatiron district before the building was constructed. New York Times, March 3, 1901, page 8: "New Building on the Flatiron." Structure will be built on "the famous 'flatiron' block." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.187.247 (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Mistaken. The "flatiron" mentioned by the Times is the pie-shaped lot on which the building was constructed, not the neighborhood, which is named for the building of course.--Wetman (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC).


 * Wetman is correct. Also, "Flatiron District" as a name for the neighborhood is relatively recent, within the last 20 years or so.  Before that, it didn't have a strong identity (because it wasn't primarily residential), but was sometimes referred to as the "Photographer's District" because of the many photography studios in the area, remnants of which (photo supply stores, processing photo places, etc) can still be found sprinkled through the area. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there air conditioning in the building?
Considering that A/C didn't exist when it was built, was it installed later on, and if so, around about what year? From photos it doesn't appear to have external A/C units (hanging out the windows), that you typically see in older style NYC buildings? Davez621 (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Layout, broken superfluous anchor link, non-typical column width
...trying to understand your undo.... Those issues are a mix of subjective and objective. Pls can you explain more than "better before"? Widefox ; talk 22:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. But first, why don't you explain what perceived problem(s) you are trying to fix. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, three issues in this section name, plus reference columns layout. Shall we fix the broken internal link and move the two images next to where they're referred to? Widefox ; talk 02:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific. What's wrong with refernce columns?  What the internal link you're referring to?  Images don't need to be precisely inside a section as long as they're nearby. Which images are you referring to? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify - 1. the double image in the ref section 1.1 displaces a whole column 1.2 creates white space below it 1.3 we can put the double image nearby as there's space 2. 2.1 eliminate the need for the " broken superfluous anchor internal link" (in the diff above) due to 1.3 . 2.2 Agree close is good enough, but they're not currently close at all. The diff above answers which links and images. Coming back to my initial question, can I get an answer please? Widefox ; talk 12:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All the images are close to or in the relevant sections on my screen. What browser are you using, at what screen resolution.  That the  double image doesn't allow a three-column reference section isn't a problem, since three columns are not in any way "standard", and the list of refs is not so long that the white space underneath the image is significant. I will see what I can do to alleviate that situation, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So, I've shifted the two photographs, which on my screen allows a three-column reference list. Is that what you're seeing as well? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes that fixes it on my screen too. The layout problem may resurface at any time with the see also section shrinking (which is desirably). Let's put the images near to the text referring to them, as we both seem to agree that's desirable anyhow. The ref columns are set by width (rather than explicitly three columns) which is OK / per template. I'm just wondering why it's set to 33em rather than the more common 30em? Please say if you have any objection to making these changes, Widefox ; talk 14:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll change 33 to 30, otherwise the layout as it exists is just fine. It's not broken and doesn't need fixing.  Let's leave it alone, please -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverts and slow loading
I notice that one editor for this article is reverting edits by others without good explanation and (IMHO) to the detriment of the page. It is best not to treat Wikipedia articles as a personal essay. In particular, the layout for the Flatiron Building article, although I am sure previously optimized for a particular browser and window size with high-speed Internet access, is not good for others with different browsers, smaller window sizes, and low-speed Internet access. Not everyone in the world has the luxury of fast Internet access. The page has certainly been overloaded with large images, decreasing accessibility for many users. In any case, anyone wishing to see an illustration magnified to higher resolution simply needs to select the desired image. Web accessibility guidelines are particularly important for a widely used resource like Wikipedia. So I would suggest that for the future, reversions should be avoided (apart from obvious vandalism of course) and instead further edits be done with good justification, especially with respect to the loading speed of this page. This is especially true if edits have been done addressing a number of different (not necessarily related) issues on the page. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not responsible for people's Internet speeds. The changes you made to the article were not improvements, and I have reverted them.  If you want to discuss specifics, fine, let's discuss specifics, I'm always interested in being involved with improving articles, but your mass changes were not beneficial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree totally with Beyond My Ken's comments. David J Johnson (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with David J Johnson and BMK. No one cares about your internet speed except you and the other people who use your internet router. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage) 21:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Specifically, why have you deleted the Normandie Apartments information and reference updates? — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You didn't "update" any references, you changed them to citation templates without adding any information. The rule of thumb here is that you do not change the style of references simply because you prefer one style over another.  In other words, there is nothing wrong with what is there, and they are consistent throughout the article, therefore there is no justification for changing them. As for the Normandie Apartments, all the source says is that "its unusual wedge shape is somewhat reminiscent" of the Flatiron Building.  That is not a sufficient connection to justify a separate and specific mention in this article.  If the source said that the architect was influenced by the Flatiron, or something like that, then adding to the article would be fine, but "somewhat reminiscent" is simply not enough.  (Indeed, one could say that almost any tall acute triangular building is "somewhat reminiscent" of the Flatiron). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Flatiron district?
I'm pretty sure flatiron district was created a handfull of years ago by real estate agencies, and is not a correct terminology and no one refers to this area as flatiron district who lives in nyc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.80.109 (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You may be "pretty sure" but you're wrong. Until quite recently, I lived in the Flatiron District.  I was there for 31 years, and moved in not long after it became primarily residential and stopped being called the "Photo District" (because of the photographers' studios there) and started being called the "Flatiron District."  I now live in Upper Manhattan, and when I tell people I used to live in the Flatiron District, they know exactly what I mean.  But you don't have to take my word for it, there are numerous reliable sources (non-real estate connected) which refer to the area as the "Flatiron District". BMK (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Number of floors
In one place this article states the building is 21 floors, in another it says 22. This link has it at 22 stories and 307 feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.172.5 (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2015‎ (UTC)
 * A large number of reliable sources give 22 floors. Of the ones I consulted to answer your question (about 8) only Emporis gives 21. Although the original building appears to have been 20 stories, a "penthouse" was later added, but whether this was one floor or two I cannot determine.  Because so many authoritative sources give 22 floors as the current height, I'm going to make this standard in the article.  If more explicit information comes to light, we can always make adjustments. BMK (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ BMK (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Concerning edits to "Original tenants and subsequent history"
The Imperial Russian consulate, a landscape architect and the Bohemian Guides Society were no more miscellaneous than the previously listed tenants. Nor does Murder Inc. deserve to be listed separately. Listing things should be done in an impartial manner to avoid any inference of marginalisation or elevation of importance. This is why care is often taken to arrange lists alphabetically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FleetingJoy (talk • contribs) 01:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. Yours was a good edit.  You improved the article.  Msnicki (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is why neither of you will ever be a good writer. BMK (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "The Flatiron's other original tenants included publishers (magazine publishing pioneer Frank Munsey, American Architect and Building News and a vanity publisher), an insurance company (the Equitable Life Assurance Society), small businesses (a patent medicine company, Western Specialty Manufacturing Company and Whitehead & Hoag, who made celluloid novelties), music publishers (overflow from 'Tin Pan Alley' up on 28th Street) and other miscellaneous concerns (a landscape architect, the Imperial Russian Consulate and the Bohemian Guides Society), as well as the offices of the Roebling Construction Company, owned by the sons of Tammany Hall boss Richard Croker. Another early tenant was the crime syndicate, Murder Inc." is just plain better writing than "The Flatiron's other original tenants included publishers (magazine publishing pioneer Frank Munsey, American Architect and Building News and a vanity publisher), an insurance company (the Equitable Life Assurance Society), small businesses (a patent medicine company, Western Specialty Manufacturing Company and Whitehead & Hoag, who made celluloid novelties), music publishers (overflow from 'Tin Pan Alley' up on 28th Street), a landscape architect, the Imperial Russian Consulate, the Bohemian Guides Society, the Roebling Construction Company, owned by the sons of Tammany Hall boss Richard Croker, and the crime syndicate, Murder Inc." But, then, Msnicki is obviously still deep in grudge mode, so I wouldn't put much in her support of you, FleetingJoy. I'm sorry you think that all business and people are equally historically important, but you'll learn better when you get a bit older.  You;ll also learn that a list "blah, and blah, and blah, and blah" is inherently boring, which is why writers break lists up in to smaller bunches, with connecting words.  I'm sure you'll cover that in this year's English classes. BMK (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please WP:AGF. I believe FleetingJoy's version was better for exactly the reasons cited in his (or her) edit remark and repeated above.  Msnicki (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a choice: either you're grudging, or you're a piss-poor judge of writing. Either works for me. BMK (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's call those the alternate hypotheses. Mine is that people always seem to think their behavior is normal.  Watch an interview with a crook and he'll insist everyone steals.  You seem very inclined to hold grudges, get angry, take things personally and spew playground insults, so I guess it shouldn't be a surprise you expect everyone else is just like that.  But most people aren't and it's genuinely remarkable that you can't see how far outside the norm you really are.  Msnicki (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting theory - you should publish a paper on it - but, unfortunately for you, totally wrong in this particular instance. I haven't given you a scintilla of thought since you helped to deep-six an excellent admin, nor have I put your most-edited articles on my watch list, as you have clearly down, nor supported editors who opposed you simply because they opposed you.  In fact, before today I would have been hard-pressed to remember your name.  Me, I'm willing to assume you are not grudge holding, in which case, as I said, you simply don't recognize the difference between good writing and bad. BMK (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I first edited this article, thus adding it to my watchlist, long before I had ever heard of you. Msnicki (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, you changed the spelling of "vaulted" from "valuted" in 2013 - and your story is that that terribly minor edit was sufficient to add the article to your watchlist? Geez, if I added every article to my watchlist in which I made a simple edit like that, it would be in the 30,000s, not the 3,000s. (But, then, I forget that you've been here for 9 years and only have 8,400 edits, of which only 3,143 are to articles, so you don't have much experience editing in general, and, specifically, you don't really edit articles all that much, do you? No, the height of your personal triumph on Wikipedia was getting rid of an admin you didn't like - well done, I've never been able to do that.)I, of course, have a somewhat different history with this article, being the editor with the most edits to it (316, as opposed to your 3), who took it from 8,600 bytes to 15,000 bytes, and then from 18,500 to 37,000 bytes, so you'll excuse me if I have something of a vested interest in the article being well-written and not a piece of cookie-cutter dreck. BMK (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, when I edit an article for any reason, it goes onto my watchlist. It just happens.  I've never paid attention to whether I could turn that off because I like it the way it is.  But again, I'm asking that you WP:AGF.  You've had an opportunity to get over this.  The next time you question my good faith or decide to fling another childish insult, I'm taking it to WP:ANI.  No one has to put with this here.  Please drop the WP:STICK. Msnicki (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're going to AN/I if I don't AGF? GLWT. (Good luck with that.) (BTW, you turn that off with a switch in Preferences/Watchlist) BMK (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you BMK that the plain list isn't particularly aesthetic. I agree that long lists can be boring. That consideration did occur. However in this case impartiality needs to remain the higher priority. In particular, the Imperial Russian Consulate might seem to some people as hardly to be considered a sundry tenant. However, rather than imbuing it with any special significance a rigorous treatment is simply to list it along with all the other tenants. The same goes for Murder Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FleetingJoy (talk • contribs) 02:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Impartiality"?! Baloney. WP:NPOV doesn't mean that we don't recognize what is and isn't important. Staples Inc. is encylopedically more important than Mom & Pop's Stationery Store, and we recognize that -- you may not like it (I may not like it), but it's reality, friend. If your objection was to the Imperial Russian Consulate being relegated to the miscellaneous list, then you should have found a way to move it up to the previous section to highlight it.  To say, instead, that all tenants are created equal is just pseudo-egalitarian nonsense.  And the Murder Inc mention at the end is a capper, something which sends the paragraph off with an interesting tidbit - another sign of non-boring, interesting writing, ending with a bit of unexpected flash.  Instead of instituting your "everyone is equal" standard (for which there is no policy support), you could have written: "The Flatiron's other original tenants included publishers (magazine publishing pioneer Frank Munsey, American Architect and Building News and a vanity publisher), an insurance company (the Equitable Life Assurance Society), small businesses (a patent medicine company, Western Specialty Manufacturing Company and Whitehead & Hoag, who made celluloid novelties), music publishers (overflw from 'Tin Pan Alley' up on 28th Street), and the Imperial Russian Consulate. Other miscellaneous concerns  included a landscape architect, the Bohemian Guides Society, and the offices of the Roebling Construction Company, owned by the sons of Tammany Hall boss Richard Croker. Another early tenant was the crime syndicate, Murder Inc." That's non-boring writing. BMK (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Just because we do not care to respond to your silly insults regarding our abilities as writers does not mean we suddenly agree. We do not.  Both of us have stated our positions clearly.  Your claim that there were no objections is laughable.  You do not have a consensus for your change.  Msnicki (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please speak for yourself, since it's already been established that FleetingJoy does not necessarily agree with your opinions. As for the content: if an alternative is suggested, and no one objects, it is considered to be a de facto consensus and, per WP:BRD editors are invited to edut the article.  Someday you should actually read our policies and working guides, you might learn something. UNfortunately, it's somewhat more difficult to learn the difference between good writing and bad (or between good admins and bad ones, for that matter). BMK (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Two versions of the lede's first paragraph
(1) The current version:

The Flatiron Building, originally the Fuller Building, is a triangular 22-story steel-framed landmarked building located at 175 Fifth Avenue in the borough of Manhattan, New York City, and is considered to be a groundbreaking skyscraper. Upon completion in 1902, it was one of the tallest buildings in the city at 20 floors high, and one of only two skyscrapers north of 14th Street – the other being the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Tower, one block east. The building sits on a triangular block formed by Fifth Avenue, Broadway and East 22nd Street, with 23rd Street grazing the triangle's northern (uptown) peak. As with numerous other wedge-shaped buildings, the name "Flatiron" derives from its resemblance to a cast-iron clothes iron.

(2) The rewritten version:

The Flatiron Building, originally the Fuller Building, is a distinctively triangular 22-story steel-framed building located at 175 Fifth Avenue, a landmark in the borough of Manhattan, New York City. Upon completion in 1902, it was one of the tallest buildings in the city at 20 floors high, and one of only two skyscrapers north of 14th Street (the other being the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Tower, one block east). The building sits on a narrow block formed by the near-convergence of Fifth Avenue and Broadway at 23rd Street, bounded on the south by East 22nd Street. The name "Flatiron" derives from the resemblance of the building's footprint to a cast-iron clothes iron.

Comments? BMK (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. My edits were motivated as follows:
 * I feel that "distinctive" highlights the building's notability; it isn't merely triangular, it is known for being unusually triangular.
 * Using "landmarked" as a neo-adjective is awkward. It is clearer and more direct to simply say that the building is "a landmark". Alternatively, the fact that it's been officially designated as a "landmark" is stated elsewhere in the lede, so it could be omitted from the opening sentence altogether.
 * The passive-voice "is considered to be a groundbreaking skyscraper" is uninformative – it doesn't explain how or why or by whom – and "is considered" is a standard example of weaselprose. The lede is strong enough without it.
 * The Metropolitan Life Insurance building is parenthetical to this this article, hence my switch to parentheses.
 * The block the building sits on is not, in fact, triangular. The block would be triangular if 23rd St. didn't cut through it... but it does. That's a quadrilateral. Only the foundation of the building itself is triangular, so a more correct description of the block is needed. My version was a first attempt; if it's inadequate, I'd hope for improvement not reversion.
 * The building does not actually resemble an iron. As stated in the article, the nickname pre-dates the building and refers to shape of the plot of land it sits on resembling a contemporary iron.
 * I attempted to modify the lede to address these issues, but they were summarily reverted with no concrete criticism. That is not constructive. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A triangle is a triangle and " distinctively triangular" is an opinion which needs to be sourced. Please see WP:OR
 * "Landmarked" is neither awkward nor a "neo-adjective", it's a real-life existing adjective that you'll find in most dictionaries, and which is commonly used in many of our articles on historic buildings. That you're not familiar with it is not a valid reason not to use it.
 * Passive-voice because the Wikipedia voice doesn't "consider it to be...", other people do - that's what the passive voice is for. This isn't a business letter or a high school essay, it's an encyclopedia article, where we use the appropriate voice for everything we write.
 * Always avoid parentheses in an encyclopedia article. A parenthetical remark is essentially an aside, something that you say in a different way from the main text so that other's don;t hear it.  We want everyone to hear what we're saying, and the fact thatthe only two skyscrapers at the time were right next to each other is both pertinent and interesting.  There is no reason whatsoever to underplay it.
 * I lived a half-block from the Flatiroin for 31 years, and the block is, in fact, just about as triangular as it is possible for a block to be. To get all pedantic and call it a "quadrilateral" because of 23rd Street is, well, just plain pedantic.
 * Yes, -people called the plot of land "the flatiron block" before it was built - I believe I included that fact in the article. And then when the Fuller Building was constructed, people went right on calloing the building "the flatiron", because both the plot of land and the building are reminiscent of a flatiron.  That one was flat (when there was no building there) and the other was tall, is irrelevant.  The name is derived from the resemblance to a flatiron, just as that football player called "The Refrigerator" was called that because his size and shape resembled a refrigerator - no one expected him to have coils in the back, to open up in front, to have a freezer compartment, or to be the exact dimensions of a kitchen refrigerator.  Remember, we're writing for people, in a way that the vast majority of people understand.  We don't say "'Refrigerator Jones' received his nickname because some people who were unfamiliar with the actual dimensions and use of a refrigerator mistook him for a refrigerator".  Again, pedantry is mostly not a good thing. Precision is good, and varies as necessary, pedantry is not.
 * Overall, your changes were not improvements, which is why I reverted them. The words in that paragraph are not a random collection but were thought about considerably. When I reverted your edits, your next step, according to WP:BRD would have been to discuss them, here, not to revert back.  Please do this in the future, and please do not restore your comments again unless you have a consensus from the editors on this page to do so. BMK (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Leave as previous Totally agree with BMK's remarks above. The revised lede was not an improvement. David J Johnson (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I've seen this problem before with BMK, who has made it clear that he considers me a lower form of life. I'll leave "his" article alone from now on. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Funny, I don't remember you at all. The reversion was not based on your name or my memory of any previous encounter with you, it was based on the quality of the writing, period. BMK (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Roof height in feet and metres
I'm missing the in the infobox. Shouldn't the article have Template:Infobox building, maybe with Template:Infobox NRHP embedded?

Also, I'm unsure of the best source for the height (the mention in the article says "it could be built to 22 stories (285 feet) relatively easily", not stating that is the current height). --83.255.50.12 (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no need for an additional infobox. BMK (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Flatiron 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150629192827/http://magicalhystorytour.blogspot.com/2010/08/skyscrapers.html to http://magicalhystorytour.blogspot.com/2010/08/skyscrapers.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Source checked. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 11:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "John Wick" popcult reference
Removed reference to "John Wick" - that was 1 Wall Street Court, not the Flatiron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.75.23.226 (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional Marvel Comics use?
The Flatiron Building is also the home of the fictional company Damage Control in the Marvel Universe comics


 * According to the article on Damage Control, they first appeared in 1988. However, in Amazing Spider-Man Annual #14 from 1980, the Flatiron Building appears in a context that suggests it is the home of a superhero or superhero team (along with the Baxter Building and Matt Murdock's house), but it isn't clear who.  And the Marvel Wikia page on the Flatiron Building mentions Marvel Two-in-One Annual #1 (1976), a time travel story involving the Thing and the Liberty Legion, as the first appearance of the Flatiron Building in Marvel comics.  But it doesn't mention any famous tenants other than Damage Control. Who else is implicitly referred to in that annual from 1980? --Jim Henry (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flatiron 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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20090129155203/http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/01/26/2009-01-26_italian_real_estate_investor_buys_stake_.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/01/26/2009-01-26_italian_real_estate_investor_buys_stake_.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)