Talk:Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/Archives/2013

Spire
I think there should be more about the Spire discussed. I can see the AON building BEHIND the Trump Tower and this Trump building is supposed to be taller. The 200+ foot spire looks like an antenna. 99.53.171.95 (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Dorothy

Emporis.com
According to the emporis.com Website the tower have 96 floors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.115.28.228 (talk • contribs)

Photos
--I was wondering if someone in Chicago could get an up-to-date photo of the build site, preferably from the west to north-west side. The Tribune Trumpcam gives a pretty limited view. (11/8/06)-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.211.38 (talk • contribs)


 * The current lead photo is only a little over a month old. I went past the site today—a new photo would add little to the article at this point. —JeremyA 00:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

# of Photos
JeremyA have hashed over the number of photos in this article for this building in the beginning stages of its construction. We have agreed that we will attempt to limit the gallery to about 12 photos and the article to 2-4 photos. Additional photos should be sent to the commons gallery. TonyTheTiger 20:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dirty deals of canceling preconstruction sales
He is voiding many sales contracts of his condo preconstruction sales for his Trump Tower Chicago. He sold units prior to construction to help secure bank financing, and now that units are selling for much more than they did when there was nothing built he wants to cancel the sales because he doesn't want his initial investors to profit. Here are some links to articles about this story.


 * Trump dumps 'Friends and Family'
 * The Donald giveth & The Donald taketh away
 * Trump undoing deals

--Kalmia 06:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fail GA
Not enough references, too many external links, (never thought I'd say it, but:) too many pictures, and finally article is subject to dramatic change once the building is completed. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

05.09.07 Edits
I've made some significant edits to the article today. Hopefully, with some work, we can get this article to GA status. I've been a big editor over at the Chicago Spire article, and I've noticed this article has needed work for quite some time. Here's what I've done:
 * Added sections - the article only had a few sections, where were IMO quite confusing. I've created new sections which should help the reader understand what is being discussed in that portion of the article or to jump to a desired portion more easily
 * Removed pictures - as mentioned for one of the reasons why this article failed GA, we have way too many pictures here. I've removed a lot of them.  Unless the text of this article expands, the current gallery and infobox picture will suffice.  Be aware that I'm only using pictures in the gallery that showed measurable progress just from looking at thumbnails with a quick glance.
 * Added further reading - hopefully readers can look at these references for a background on the building itself, how the building relates to Chicago architecture, and how it relates to other Trump towers.
 * Added reference improvement tag - Most of the article is unreferenced. We need more references.
 * Converted sales brochure info into prose - this was just a list. I converted it into sentences and used the sales brochure as a reference.
 * Restored table of contents - not sure why this was removed, maybe it didn't flow with all the pictures
 * Moved gallery to new construction section - It doesn't need its own section. I think it fits nicely with that other text in the construction section.
 * Removed some external links per WP:EL - just removed a few links not directly related to the article subject.

Thanks for your help thus far. Future edits adding content and references would be appreciated! Chupper 15:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the spirit of your changes. However, given the number of images in the text of Chicago Spire I am a bit surprised with your decision to wipe out so many here. I don't actively edit this article much and you can tell it is not on my watch list by how long it took me to notice the pics were gone.  If you can turn this into a GA though, have at it. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Haha, I knew you would mention the number of images in the Chicago Spire article :). A new article has been written for the Chicago Spire.  I'll be posting it as soon as actual construction starts on the Spire.  Feel free to have a look at it and make changes - it's located at User:Chupper/Sandbox04.  Considering the amount of prose on that sandbox article, you'll notice that the image count is way down and I probably need to bring some more pictures into it.
 * To get the Trump Chicago article to GA status we'll at least need a lot more prose and additional references. In addition I'll be restoring all those pictures back into the gallery section and maybe 1 or 2 into the main article.  Considering WP:MOS and the consensus already established, I realized I removed those images in error.  If you want to, go ahead and add those pictures back in.  I probably won't be able to get around to it until next week because I'm drowning in finals right now.  Chupper 12:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've come across this page again and I've reconsidered my position on the image count. I do feel leaving large amounts of images in the gallery is alright, while not preferred, IMO, however the three images on the left of the article seem to obtrusive, considering the amount of prose this article has.  Even if and when this article is expanded, they should be located on the right.  When this article loads, readers will be overwhelmed by images.  When I read the intro and TOC, I feel like I have to fight just to keep my eyes on the text.  Can we move some the three images on the left to the gallery?  Or at least move two of the images on the left to the gallery, and move one to the right, further down on the article? Chupper 21:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The article would have to be a whole lot longer for the images to go on the right because of the infobox. I got a new camera last week.  Can you see the improvement in the night time view?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, the article would need to be a lot longer. Do you understand my concern though, regarding the images on the left?  Especially for folks with smaller resolution screens, the left side images are squishing the text in the center making the into very hard to read.  How about if we move that night image (yes a good image, does show measurable progress IMO - and jeeeshh... i miss Chicago) to the right side of the article, beneath the infobox and move the other two to the gallery? Chupper 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Setback Heights
The statement in the article under Architecture:Design "the second setback aligns with the Marina City Towers" is clearly not true now that the second setback has been completed - it's short by atleast 50 feet. 207.229.133.76 18:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Sammy G207.229.133.76 18:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tribune's Trump cam
The Tribune has a camera on the building and uploads new shots every few minutes. Link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-trump-htmlpage,0,7270199.htmlpage?coll=chi_business_util I don't know how to insert this into the article without messing up the page. Please do the same if you think it is useful. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.27.242 (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I added it into the external link section it is very helpful. -Marcusmax 20:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image placement
Is it just me, or are some images in this article poorly placed squashing the lead paragraphs between images and the infobox? Astronaut (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you on that one, it looks a little busy with all the pictures. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm at a 1024,768 and the images up in the lead section look terrible, IMO. How would this look as an alternative? Does it look any better with the larger screen resolutions? Chupper (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Revising "Architecture: Restaurant"
Some of the wording in the Architecture section is confusing, non-NPOV and off... a few examples:

although some consider it more of a place to impress clients and dates than a top notch dining experience.

The passageway leads to views of the Wrigley Building clock tower and Tribune Tower's flying buttresses that although not comparable to the Hancock Center's Signature Room are heartstopping.

And that weird sentence about Guy de Maupassant. Sound like they were pulled from articles in the Trib... which they were. Suggesting rewrite.Moushi (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

images
The following images were taken at Sixteen and are available on flickr:


 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/danebrian/2332604017/
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/danebrian/2332604447/

I do not know that any consent was obtained and have been told myself that pictures are not permitted. They are listed on flickr with licensing indicating they are available to WP. Should we add them?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The images are licensed with cc-by-sa-2.0, which is indeed a Wiki-compatible license. I suppose I don't have the context to understand the consent/permission concern to which you are referring; do you mean photography is not allowed in Thirteen or is the concern pertinent to non-Flickr use of these images?  If the former is the case, it would be advisable to do some searching to reach a level of confidence that this is not Flickr washing (is it odd that someone willing to release the image(s) under such a license would have access to the empty restaurant - especially in daylight?).  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 02:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When I pulled out my digital camera, I was told no photos were allowed. I was told that one had to obtain consent from the media department.  I doubt anyone who had consent would take substandard photos with their Blackberry.  I also doubt that they would take a picture of the patio behind dirty glass.  They would probably get consent to have the door opened.  These photos have the feeling of being taken on the sly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They may indeed have been taken on the sly. In the United States, however, one is generally allowed to photograph anything with the exception of certain military subjects and people who have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  Institutions may have policies disallowing photography, but such policies are generally not founded in or supported by law (I'm not familiar enough with Illinois state law to assert with certainty that this is the case here, however).  There can be caveats involving issues of trespassing and issues arising from publication of libel or confidential/private information, but that is more detail than necessary for this discussion and something I don't suspect is ultimately applicable here.
 * Wikipedia recognizes (in the sense that it restricts) copyrights, but not other limitations of use (e.g. trademarks); I'm not aware of policy or guidelines precluding use of photos taken on the sly. We also don't know that the photographer received the warning you did.  In the absence of IL law to the contrary, the most the photos are doing is violating a request.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Until we get better pictures, I will use these.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Some comments on recent edits:
 * "Radler's daughters were also named in the lawsuit": Radler sued his own daughters? "Named in the lawsuit" generally means someone was a defendant.
 * His daughters were named as plaintiffs not defendants. They had also purchased at a discount.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The plaintiffs are bringing the lawsuit; "naming" people has an accusational tone, so that's generally reserved for the defendants. I'll change it to something like "they joined as plaintiffs" or "they were parties to the lawsuit". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I went with "sued by ... Radler and his daughters", does that work? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * After checking the source, I'm fine with the re-insertion of the "broadcast antennas" sentence, and I think that's a better place for it, too. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What do we do about the tag that says "It may contain information of a speculative nature"? It seems to me an FA can't contain speculative material...and this article doesn't contain speculative material, because it talks mostly about the history and the present condition of a structure that is functioning and occupied.  Saying that completion is anticipated next summer doesn't brand the entire article "speculative" in my mind. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revert; I'm going to try to deal with Giants2008's objections at WP:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/archive1 in preparation for the next FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks kindly, Adultswim, for fixing the refs I broke; I'm an idiot. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Completion
SSP (skyscraperpage) says this building is completed so we'd like a collaboration to update this article to say it is done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneaky Oviraptor18 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

New main image
I am looking at several new images to replace the current image, which has distractions. See below:


 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/shanafin/3539209674/
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcbusby/3417125155/
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/picken/3561187919/

Opinions are welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, the second two look like artist's impressions, not the real thing! I like the look of the middle one, mcbusby's pic. -- timsdad  (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh?
This sentence makes no sense, as far as I can see. When topped out in 2009 it became the third-tallest building in the United States after Chicago's Willis Tower, Chicago's current third-tallest, the Aon Center, and fourth-tallest, the John Hancock Center. I'd change it, but I'm not even sure what the original intent was. Is it not the second tallest in the US? Then what's this "after" these other buildings? Un sch  ool  03:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Height and floors
An anonymous editor, in this discussion, brought up that the height of this building is actually 423 metres, according to CTBUH and the German Wikipedia. It turns out:
 * SkyscraperPage reports the height at 423.4 m with 92 floors
 * The CTBUH lists it as 423 m with 98 floors
 * Emporis says its 414.99 m with 96 floors
 * This article indicates the height is 415.1 m (from this 2006 article) with 92 floors (infobox) or 96 floors (lead section)
 * The German article is at least consistent with 423.4 m with 98 (gathered from CTBUH and evidently SkyscraperPage, going by the height in metres)

As this information clearly differs greatly, I suggest we need to pick a source and stick with it. My preference would be the CTBUH, however I would really appreciate opinions on this first. Thanks, timsdad   (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I will post a query at WP:SKY.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should stick with SkyscraperPage. The official website claims that the building has 92 stories tall, and the 423 m number from CTBUH is rounded off from 923.4 - as you can you can tell from the list provided in the CTBUH link above, the organization does not list heights with any decimal places. 423.4 m converts to 1,389 feet, and on the building's individual CTBUH entry, it gives it height as "1,389 feet (423 m)", so the metric calculation is simply rounded off. 1,389 feet has also been cited by the Chicago Tribune as the building's official height: this Tribune link actually lists it height as 1,388 feet 6 inches, which rounds up to 1,389 feet.


 * Interestingly, the 415.1 m (1,361 ft) number was formerly correct, but the CTBUH changed hos it measured the height of buildings, so the building "gained" 27 feet without actually becoming physically taller. The sources listing a height around 415 m probably just haven't been updated since the change in height measurement. CTBUH previously measured height from sidewalk to architectural top, but now it is measured from lowest open-air pedestrian level to top. So the tower's height is now calculated from the shops along the river, not the main entrance on Wabash Ave. Since its height has officially "increased" according to the CTBUH, this also puts it ahead of the Jin Mao Tower in Shanghai, making it the sixth-tallest building in the world and not the seventh. This is all taken from the Chicago Tribune article; perhaps this is worth a mention in the article? Cheers, Rai • me  05:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rank: You say sixth, the article says tenth, and Wik's list of tallest buildings in the U.S. says 11th.  Wik should be consistent:  what is the rank of this building among world skyscrapers? let's stick to one rank (even if we have to footnote it with a long explanation). Kdammers (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Love those numbers till it hurts ...
One of the refs:
 * "Just opened: Spa at Trump". Time Out Chicago. 2008-03-20–2008-03-26. Retrieved 2008-06-10.

Mr Stephen (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Tyler Jones > Bill Rancic
In Construction lede, I just changed Tyler Jones (who he?) to Bill Rancic, Trump Apprentice 1st season winner. Rest of story contains much Rancic, and no Jones. OK? Surprised it wasn't caught earlier, or did I miss something? Bellagio99 (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)