Talk:200 Amsterdam

Height comparison

Hi User:Epicgenius. I see you removed the comparison of the height of 200 Amsterdam to nearby buildings. I think your interpretation of WP:SYN here misapprehends the point of the policy. It is useful for a reader to understand the relationship of the height of this building to other nearby buildings. As the text stands, the reader is led to the mistaken conclusion that 200 Amsterdam is dramatically taller than nearby buildings. One can establish what buildings are nearby with plenty of unbiased sources that illustrate the locations of both 200 Amsterdam and other buildings, such as Google Maps -- I suppose if you wanted to be really obsessive you could create citation links to such mapping, but that seems gratuitous. With that relationship established, the height of the other nearby buildings is worth verifying / citing. The citation to the outside source is not used to synthesize any particular conclusion, it is simply used to validate "this other building is of such height", and the information is provided to help the reader avoid an unwarranted conclusion. --Auros (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC) (making a tweak to try to fix the user template :-P) --Auros (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, @Epicgenius:. I'd appreciate it if instead of just reverting my edit, we could have a conversation about why you believe the height comparison constitutes original research and synthesis, given that it is cited to links that anyone can follow, to validate the locations and numbers of stories. It's straight factual information, with no interpretation. --Auros (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, I just realized that was @J.D.718: --Auros (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Auros, sorry, I did not see the post. I was not the one who reverted your edit this time around, that was J.D.718. Anyway, the previous time I reverted this addition, it was because "It is significantly taller than most buildings to its north and west, but not dramatically taller than nearby buildings to the south and east" only cites two examples. Optimally, you should add a source that describes all of these buildings at once. Two examples aren't enough to back up the claim, not the first part, anyway. Additionally, I'm unsure what's the point of including this sentence. If it's the tallest building in the neighborhood, there can be sources for that; if not, better to just not include this, because it feels slightly like trivia. epicgenius (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The current text describes the building as "the tallest building on the Upper West Side". Doesn't this by itself seem like the answer to a trivia question? "I'll take New York Skyline for 200, Alex!" :-) It seems to me that if this is worth knowing at all, it's also worth understanding the relationship to the surrounding neighborhood -- whether it is marginally taller than nearby buildings, or distinct from the area. I will grant as fair that what would be ideal is a source that evaluates the full context. Google's aerial photography gives a clear sense of it -- it's visually obvious that heights fall off to the north and west, but are similar to the east and south. I guess you could call that "original research", but it's not like I've conducted a bunch of my own measurements and I'm asking you to take my methodology on faith -- anyone can look at the same aerial views, and I think generally folks accept that Google's photography is real / trustworthy. (Actually, does Wikipedia have a cite format for that kind of Google Maps / Google Earth citation?) I poked around a bit to see if I could find a public domain shot of the skyline, but couldn't find anything recent enough to be useful. In the absence of that, I was just citing a couple specific buildings that are within a couple of blocks, at comparable heights. In any case, I guess I agree the citations could be improved, but I think they're not so terrible as to require reversion / removal of the info that, IMHO, gives appropriate context to the "tallest building" label. --Auros (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Auros, I agree the citations can be improved. In the context of this being "the tallest building on the Upper West Side", your addition makes sense. However, Emporis is a much better source than PropertyShark. epicgenius (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed new text, focusing just on the existence of nearby buildings of similar height. (Though I still think if we have an appropriate citation format for linking to the Google aerial imagery, that could work for simply presenting the "landscape" of the buildings, for justifying a broader statement.) Also, I found references on these two examples in the NYTimes Real Estate tool, which seems like an even better source than Emporis.

Buildings of comparable size exist within a thousand feet to the south and east, including Tower 67 and the Park Millennium, each of which stands 47 stories tall.

BTW, I also had been intentionally linking to those two non-existent articles on the theory that maybe somebody will eventually create them; they're large named buildings, I don't see any reason they shouldn't have articles. (I know there's a whole philosophical argument between expansionist and deletionist people, over what level of notability merits inclusion, I've always tended towards the expansionist side. Disk space is cheap.) --Auros (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I'm going to go ahead and add that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auros (talk • contribs) 22:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Direct quote

@J.D.718: Regarding your revert - I do not see it as an "improvement" over my edits. The "direct quote" you refer to is not one single direct quote, but a combination of a quotation and some commentary in this Gothamist article: based on a 39-sided "gerrymandered lot" that abused zoning protocols. Only the words "gerrymandered lot" are part of the quote. Furthermore you put back an unbalanced quotation at the end of the second sentence. epicgenius (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

First, the quote is a direct quote from the article. A pertinent aspect, "abused zoning protocols", was removed by you and so reversed by me. Maybe it needed the punctuation adjusted, or even a minor rewrite [aka collaboration], but that's not what you did. Secondly, I thought we had already established, over at Talk:Andy Byford#Correspondence from Stringer to Byford regarding reopening closed exits (when you swiped content I'd written over to another page, with no mention of doing so, while protesting it where I'd added it), that it's you who needs to be more careful, which, here, you have not been, by deleting pertinent information, (hence the revert). Thirdly, you appear as a proprietary, self-appointed NYC authority... Well, Neighbor, do you mean to continue to follow my edits, reducing or removing criticism added regarding anything New York, on a regular basis? J.D.718 (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, considering you are a relative newcomer, I think you should know that reverting edits is not "collaboration". In fact, using words such as "not an improvement" implies the opposite.

Don't assume bad faith and presume I am "following" you. I watch a lot of pages relevant to NYC developments, and I added the paragraph about the topic way before you came and changed it. Not sure why you think I'd want to remove criticism ... this is hardly criticism and you should stop casting aspersions about my edits. I didn't even know it was you who added the sentence. epicgenius (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I am not a proprietary, self-appointed NYC authority. I am an editor just like you and everyone else. There is no need to be rude, or make edit summaries like this. I will just be more careful in the future. epicgenius (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

"Well, considering you are a relative newcomer, I think you should know that reverting edits is not "collaboration" → and, yet, it has been your history to revert my edits, so I cannot imagine why you think that is any argument. I am not really new, I used to edit only at school, anonymously. BTW rude is silently swiping other people's work and research and pasting it elsewhere, while reverting them where you found it, and arguing to keep it that way. Further, a question is not presumption, nor an accusation... my question was meant to preclude assumption, in fact, which would be based on the history, nonetheless. I did add to something you had started, yes... that is what collaboration looks like. You don't own it. (But, you can bet, that if I had deleted it there and placed it on some other page, I'd have noted that fact FYI, in the spirit of collaboration and fairness.) Yes, please, just be more careful in future, and replace authoritarianism with collaboration, and we'll have no further issues. J.D.718 (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You are correct that no one owns an article, per WP:OWN. I apologize for the manner in which I acted before. I suppose we can consider this conversation resolved, since no further good can come from arguing over this. epicgenius (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, and I apologize that I was not exemplary in reacting. Next encounter, I will try to work more together than apart, too. (I've heard that the third time's the charm.) J.D.718 (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)