Talk:Tower 42

2nd tallest building?
The BT Tower, Shard, One Canada Square and more are taller than Tower 42. So reference to 2nd tallest building in London should be removed as inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.159.62 (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The "City of London" is a small part of "London", geographically. The BT Tower, Shard and One Canada Square are not in the City. cm&#610;&#671;ee&#9742;&#9993; 19:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Dubious
The GLC was abolished in 1986, so an event in 1996 could not prompt it to do anything. Perhaps it was the City Corporation that changed planning guidance? MRSC (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly this. Secretlondon (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

NatWest Logo
I seem to have wandered into a dispute with another editor on the old chestnut as to whether the building's plan is, or is not, based on the NatWest logo. So, trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines, let me summarise the position here on the talk page as I see it. (1) Architect Richard Seifert always denied that he based the building design on the NatWest logo. There are ample citations for this.

(2) Whether Seifert is right or wrong, it is a fact that designs for the NatWest Tower were being developed as early as the mid 1960s (then as a new headquarters for the former National Provincial Bank) whereas the creation of National Westminster Bank, (though announced in 1968) did not take effect until 1970, when the new logo first appeared. The question of which came first is therefore, at the very least, debatable. There are also ample citations that acknowledge the issue is not clear cut.

(3) The original text in the article header states that the building design "closely resembles" the NatWest logo. A simple inspection of the two shows that this is clearly more accurate than to state the building design "is that of" the NatWest logo. Clearly the two are not identical.

I have therefore made edits to reflect these points and would be happy to debate the same.82.16.19.157 (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We can't draw conclusions in articles, so if there are citations showing the issue to be muddy, as you suggest, we should do our best to locate them. Anything you have for the dates of the design of the building and the appearance of the logo would be welcome additions. You were also correct to change my wording back (the earlier wording was also mine); that was a mistake on my part. I'm also removing the word "closely" because it's not quantifiable language. I apologize for my prickly response to your edit, but would also suggest to you that edit summaries stating things to be "contrary to Wikipedia policy" are likely to rub people up the wrong way. Your original edit summary, in fact, suggested the article contained the phrase "deliberately designed to resemble the NatWest logo", which it didn't. If you can keep your edit summaries strictly related to the exact thing that you're doing, and keep commentary to talk pages (as here), that will help us all work together in a collegial fashion. Best regards, —  Scott  •  talk  09:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Tower 42 page
Hi

i have been told as an employee of Tower Managed Services - The building management team of Tower 42, i am an unreliable source to update the page.

I am writing to inform you quite a few bits of information on the Tower 42 page is incorrect, most of the companies are no longer there, the floor descriptions are wrong, and we have a new lighting display we would like to add to the lighting content part. i tried changing this earlier, but have been asked to email the Talk team. i am very new to this, and would really like to be able to update with the correct information.

We will be soon putting up the lighting page on our own Tower 42 website which i am currently updating, and due to fraud happening quite a bit through Tower 42, i really want to ensure the occupiers which are down as tenants are actually part of the building.

I am currently in talks with Companies house and Trading Standards and they have confirmed we need to do some editing on the page.

Please can you help me in regards to what i need to do in order to either edit the page myself, or have the false information removed please? HannahWalt101 (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. It’s tower management services. I am working off my phone from a hospital and therefore it was a typo. HannahWalt101 (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First, on your User page, you MUST declare your paid status. See WP:PAID for why. Second, to make useful requests here on the articles Talk page, each request must be specific, as in exact wording proposed to add (with appropriate references), and exact wording that should be deleted (with references to show that the information is not true or no longer true). Third, in my opinion, listing tenants adds nothing of value to the article, so I deleted all mention of tenants. I also deleted the floor descriptions as not contributing to the informational value of the article. Fourth, as to updating a description of the lighting, what you know to be true cannot be added to the article with out a reference. Instagram and Twitter are rarely considered reliable source references. David notMD (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * From what the user has said, they have a COI, but are not actually Paid to write articles on Wikipedia. SilkTork (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this.

Would the Tower 42 website be a creditable source? As you will be able to see what we do through the website? HannahWalt101 (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The website is already provided as an External link. And I added it to the Infobox. The website cannot be used as a reference, as what the company publishes about itself is not considered an independent source. Same applies to press releases. David notMD (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * That website is considered a primary source - see WP:PRIMARY for advice on how to use a primary source on Wikipedia. Basic facts, such as a description of the lighting, may be used, though it is preferable for such information to come via a secondary source as that way it is clear that the information has been regarded by an independent source as notable. SilkTork (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * National Westminster Tower level 42 viewing gallery.jpg