Talk:One Times Square

WSJ, Slashdot stories
The ads earn ~$25 million a year, and 100 million pedestrians pass through the site every year. Some people wonder how the ads could justify the expense.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323476304578199310470733342.html

http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/12/27/2318202/empty-times-square-building-generates-23-million-a-year-from-digital-ads

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on One Times Square. 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/20170928200946/https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170928/times-square-theater-district/one-times-square-museum-observatory to https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170928/times-square-theater-district/one-times-square-museum-observatory

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) 04:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Quality status degraded
This article needs some attention re: the Good Article criteria. It's unclear from the lede who owns the building and what was housed there before it went vacant. The Lehman Brothers segment is shoved into the Billboards section rather than explained in the building history Sales section. And then it devolves into proseline for the final paragraphs. Overall needs some massaging to qualify as "well written" for GA purposes and a section on Construction/Design for breadth purposes. Posting here for feedback but otherwise looks like the article is due for WP:GAR. (not watching, please )  czar  04:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have rearranged this article a bit, but it still needs a design section. From looking at the version that was promoted, it looks like there never was a design section to begin with. There is not too much info on construction and the Times' ownership, either, but I think that could be remedied relatively easily. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added an architecture section and greatly expanded the history section with additional details. From the looks of it, this article might need a GAR anyway - not because it no longer meets the criteria, but because the current version of this article differs so greatly from the version that was promoted. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Original zipper ("Motograph News Bulletin")
While all the publicity of the Mark I zipper (1928-1963) claimed it was 14,800 bulbs, technically based on the measurements of the building frontage it couldn't have been. Photos taken in daytime during World War II on the 43rd Street side showed a total of 720 bulbs, or an average of 60 per row (the Mark I zipper was 12 rows high), which is significant given that that side of the building was 20' from end to end. By this calculation, the Broadway side (143' to the east) would have been 5,148 bulbs (average 429 per row), the 42nd Street side (58' 4-1/8" to the south) roughly 2,103 bulbs (average >175 per row) and the Seventh Avenue side (137' 11-3/4" to the west) approximately 4,965 bulbs (average <414 per row). Which would amount to about 12,936 bulbs total. The bulbs were generally separated by 4" from left to right, and 4.5" from top to bottom, slanted at about an angle of 9 - 9.5 degrees.

The other factor was in how many characters were on each side at one time, as seen in old photos. Each character was spaced about 12.5 bulbs apart (50"), thus 4.8 characters on the 43rd Street side, 34.32 on the Broadway side, 14 on the 42nd Street side and 33.12 on the Seventh Avenue side.

To be sure, it was a remarkable achievement in terms of its construction and installation, and certainly not chicken feed, but not nearly as much as the publicity said. —Wbwn (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)