Talk:FOCSA Building

Floor Plan + Section Drawings

Added Autocad plan and sections and diagrams and many, many photographs which will be of help in understanding this building. Cheers! ovA_165443 21:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Floor Plan, Parking-basement floors

If anyone has floor plans-photos of the parking floors, first floor, podium. please contact me. Thank you. ovA_165443 (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Trimming the article

Osvaldo valdes 165443, I disagree with you reverting my changes, so discussing here. I believe that my removals were entirely reasonable - there are far too many pictures in this article, and the manual of style for images says that images should be directly relevant to the article and that too many can be distracting. While the pictures I removed are (presumably) pictures of the building interior, they do not help the reader understand the article's content any better. Additionally, the section on how cast-in-place construction works is off-topic for the article and doesn't belong in it - the fact that the building is cast-in-place is relevant, and if the building's cast-in-place construction were unique in some way that might be notable, but a long explanation of how the process works does not belong in the article. I ask that you review the guidelines I've linked above and reconsider your revert. creffett (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that the article needs trimming and you have not provided any valid reason. The high strength cast in place concrete was I believe the first of it's kind in Havana, designed by Sáenz, Cancio & Martín. At the time it was the second tallest residential building (the first was the Martinelli Building in São Paulo, Brazil), coupled with the high winds of the site it was tour de force taking into consideration not only structures but ventilation as well, the FOCSA was unique in this respect, so, I have no idea why you are intent on removing that section. I also do not understand why you removed all the images of the section that explains the 1/2 level section? Do you understand what is going on in the section? Can you explain it?

• 
  Typical floor plan. Stairs from the tenant corridor. Service stairs shown below.
• 
  Entrance to apartment half a floor down from corridor.
• 
  Apartments located one-half floor up or down from corridors.
• 
  Typical apartment showing service and tenant stairs to two different levels of two corridors.

You deleted the floor plan of the building and the plan of the typical apartments, what! Plans that I did in Autocad for the article, why did you remove them? Do you think your way is better? There are different sets of corridors (LOOK AT THE SECTION YOU REMOVED!!!!!) on different levels to different parts (front-back) of the same apartment, one is a service corridor, the other, a tenant corridor; they are different, they may look the same, they are not; different stairs (service-tenant). There are not too many images, you just do not understand what is going on! The FOCSA is a unique single-loaded corridor building, one of a kind in the world. Also, it is very difficult to get into the building, it has never been documented so that if anyone is interested in Havana architecture, the FOCSA in particular, the photos as indispensable, please do not remove them I know you may mean well, but you are doing architects and those who may be interested a disservice...you also removed the images and the entire section on corridors, why! I don't understand your statement "seriously, why do we have a gallery of what the corridors look like?" Well, read the article it explains the unique importance of the corridors and the 20" separation which I thought was explained at length via diagrams, description, photos.

Twenty-inch separation.

How did you miss this? I can only come to the conclusion that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND the unique importance of these corridors and their separation as applicable to single loaded residential building design and/or you did not read the article.

=== Corridors ===

The wall extends through the rear wall to support the corridors on the outside of the building. They are separated (vertically) by twenty inches to provide a continuous space for apartment ventilation and views to the west. There are three sets of service and tenant corridors every other floor. The center corridor is for service the other two long corridors are for tenants. The service and tenant corridors are unrecognizable from the exterior, except that the service corridors are shorter in length, this reflects the location of the service stairs of the end units, A and L. Service and tenant corridors are located at different heights. From each apartment, the exit stair goes up to the tenant corridor and down to the service corridor. There was initially a private elevator to each apartment (X on the plan), which was never installed.

• 
  Service corridor, the section at tenant stairs.
• 
  Tenant corridor, looking north.
• 
  Tenant (blue) & service (red) stairs from apartments to corridors.
• 
  Service corridor looking north.

including the unique drawing of the corridors and the Autocad section! This article does not need any trimming, leave it alone and no offense intended but please edit something more on your level...ovA_165443 (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Osvaldo valdes 165443, I can't say I care for the personal attacks. I agree that those pictures and diagrams are accurate representations of the building, but they are still excessive, unless there are reliable sources to show that those features are notable. Would you be open to a third opinion regarding this? creffett (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

They weren't personal attacks. How do you know they are "accurate representations of the building," you have visited the FOCSA? You have not answered one of my questions. ovA_165443 (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

"[E]dit something more on your level" is absolutely a personal attack. I have no idea whether they were accurate, since you took the pictures I was assuming good faith that they represent the building. Now, if some aspects of the building are especially notable, then I have no problem including them as long as there are reliable sources to say that they are notable, and I do not see that. Since it seems that we're at an impasse, I'm going to go ahead and request a third opinion. creffett (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Not a personal attack, it's clear you do not understand the building, have not visited and promptly removed 10 reliable sources for no good reason and now contradicting yourself cite reliable sources, are you serious? Refusal to answer questions indicates that you cannot back up whatever your reasons for what you've done; you have failed to show why the images are not "relevant to the article." And why do you ask me if I agree to a third party review if it is what you intended to do anyway? In that case, I want three people to offer their opinion and you should answer my questions instead of ignoring me. ovA_165443 (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: Both the Construction and Distribution sections are too in-depth and not suitable for this article in my opinion. I do not see how the detailed construction information adds to the general notability of the building. The information may be more suitable at Cast in place concrete or other relevant articles (with reliable sources of course) but not in this article.

As for the issue on excessive images, I have to agree with Creffett. According to MOS:PERTINENCE, Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Most of the interior photographs seem to be of lower-quality which I do not think helps in aiding readers. I do not oppose having a CAD floor plan image like File:FOCSA BUILDING FLOOR PLAN.jpg and an external photo to show the significance of the building and its design. Having ten-plus images of stairwells, hallways, and various other interior shots seems to be a little excessive to me, especially with the size of the article. Creffett and Osvaldo valdes 165443, I hope this helps. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at the article. I have edited sections of the concrete, you might point out which image is decorative, I don't know what you mean; I count 4 images of three different types of stairs not "ten-plus images," so could you please be so kind as to point these out? Also, 3 images of stairs show the cross-ventilation, views, interpenetration of space with the 2 types of corridors and lighting unique to the FOCSA and single-loaded corridor building design so that they fit the description "significant and relevant in the topic's context". Please point to what you describe so we might get on the same page. Thank you! ovA_165443 (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Osvaldo valdes 165443, I count seven images that are within the prose of the article and a further seven or so in the gallery towards the bottom of the page. As for the corridor and lighting photographs, do you happen to have a reliable source to verify that information? I would not be opposed to remove those images but I would like some sources that state it is unique to the building and its design. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Seven images within the text

Originally your statement was in reference to the stairs, you changed it. My answer was in reference to stairs: " I count 4 images of three different types of stairs not "ten-plus images," so could you please be so kind as to point these out?" Please identify "ten-plus images" of stairs so that we may move forward. Sources cited are within the text, did you read them? I don't understand what your point is other than you feel there are too many images, fine, again, can you please be specific about the images you think are excessive or "decorative" (please define "decorative") so that we can have a fruitful conversation? Do you consider these images excessive? Villa Giulia Thanks again! ovA_165443 (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Osvaldo valdes 165443, an article of this length does not need four images of stairs and four photos of corridors, it is excessive as stated before. I may of over-exaggerated the number of photographs which is my fault. Maybe one photo of a corridor and stairs to illustrate the uniqueness of the building's design would work, but not four. I hope this helps. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

How can I take you two seriously, there are ONLY two photos of corridors, not four as you claim. And maybe four stairs are shown because there are four stair types; they are all different. Look I am open for other points of view but frankly, creffett's edits border as I told him on vandalism. He blasted plans and sections that took days to draw without understanding the building. You announce "the plans are ok" oh, really, gee thanks. What about the reliable source you inquired about, did you read the references? Well, neither of you are convincing in what you say or do I think you understand the building. Thank you for your opinion. Take care!

Osvaldo valdes 165443, I do not see how the edits by Creffett could be construed as vandalism. I see them as bold to help improve the article. As for the sources, two of them ([1] and [2]) seem to self-published blogs. I can not find any further information on the Arthur Fox article as well. These sources need to be either replaced or removed completely according to Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing content you have already agreed is valuable does not magically qualify as bold now, you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. I am curious, is creffett your friend? How do you happen to be here? The sources you question come under Wikipedia: Verifiability and because you do not want to do the work on the Arthur Fox article (Engineering News-Record 7/1955:34-37. Print.) what you say is irrelevant, did you try the public library? Did you try the Engineering News-Record[3]? Where did you search for the article? Out of courtesy and the fact you and your friend do not have a convincing argument, you need to judiciously answer my questions or this conversation will go no further... Please answer "While the pictures I removed are (presumably) pictures of the building interior" on this thread which has been conveniently ignored to this point. Thanks! ovA_165443 (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Osvaldo valdes 165443, I am responding to a request for a third opinion, which Creffett added a few days ago. It is on you, the editor who originally added the information, to demonstrate the verifiability of the information in question, according to WP:BURDEN. I do not find a self-published blog and wiki to be reliable enough. As for the Engineering News-Record article, I did a deep search on Google News Archive, Google Books and the Internet Archive and could not find the article cited. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe you did any any "deep search" or you would have found it. I've already suggested the Engineering News-Record[4]. Did you try the Engineering News-Record[5]. Did you contact them? Where/how did you look for the article? Where/how did you conduct your so called "deep research"? Also I suggest you famililiarize yourself with the large section reliable source and not just cherry pick what suits your ventilation. Again, judiciously answer my questions or this conversation will go no further. ovA_165443 (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Osvaldo valdes 165443, I wouldn't consider creffett a "friend" in a personal sense but in an editorship sense. We, along with yourself, are all editors here to build an online encyclopedia. As for your comment regarding reliable sources, I don't believe many of the sources in the article are reliable enough to be included. As I stated before, the self-published blog, wiki, along with the Memories of Underdevelopment Wikipedia article, are not appropriate sources. Having said that, I believe the ENR article and Middlesex University journal are reliable and suitable for the article, I would love to see more of those. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

"many of the sources are not reliable..." please list these sources and answer my previos questions, thanks. ovA_165443 (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Osvaldo valdes 165443, here is a list:

1. [6] is a self-published wiki that relies on one source.
2. [7] is a self-published blog in which the author has no indication of subject-matter expertise.
3. [8] does not seem to verify that those two radio stations are located within the building.
4. [9] is not allowed per WP:CIRCULAR (using a Wikipedia article as a reference).
5. The University of Nottingham citation does not have any mention of the building in it.
The rest of the sources seem OK but the information does not even belong in the article. That includes the detailed construction, distribution, and Western view sections. This is what was discussed earlier. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Allow me time to answer at least, these concerns are addressed in my previous post. Many of the questions you ask may be found in what you call a "self published article" by © 2020 CUBAHORA. Primera revista digital de Cuba Centro de Información para la Prensa Dirección, Territorial y General Suárez. Plaza de la Revolución. La Habana. Cuba: https://www.ecured.cu/Edificio_Focsa 5. The University of Nottingham citation does not have any mention of the building BECAUSE: This ref concerns Memories of Underdevelopment-Did you read the article? ovA_165443 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Osvaldo valdes 165443, take as long as you need to reply. Just a quick note, I think you meant to link the Middlesex University journal, which does mention the building and film. I purposely omitted that citation from my list. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

1. The article is published by © 2020 CUBAHORA. Primera revista digital de Cuba, Centro de Información para la Prensa, Dirección: Territorial y General Suárez. Plaza de la Revolución. La Habana. Cuba. What do you mean by "self published," can you explain?

2. My Ref. (Juan de las Cuevas Toraya, published in 2001.arquitecturacuba.blogspot.com – visited 2/2010) Condensed from a writing of Juan de las Cuevas. You stated "he is no subject matter expert". https://www.amazon.com/500-Anos-construcciones-en-cuba/dp/8460731596

An obituary on the "no subject matter expert" Juan de las Cuevas:

Falleció hace pocos días el destacado investigador cubano Don Juan de las Cuevas Toraya, a quien tuvimos la suerte de conocer durante la visita que realizó a Cárdenas el 19 de febrero de 2004 para presentar, en el museo Oscar M. de Rojas, su libro 500 años de construcciones en Cuba. LLegue a su viuda y a sus familiares y amigos el más sentido pésame de El Cardenense. Para honrar su memoria reproducimos un hermoso artículo sobre su vida y su obra que publicó el pasado domingo en el periodico Juventud Rebelde el conocido y leído periodista cubano Ciro Bianchi Ross. Ernesto Alvarez Blanco. Mi amigo Juan Por: Ciro Bianchi Ross• 16 de Marzo del 2013 Fue la nuestra una amistad extraña. Conversamos durante horas por teléfono e intercambiamos cientos de correos, pero nunca llegamos a conocernos personalmente pese a lo fácil que hubiese resultado hacerlo. No pocas veces programé una visita a su casa, en la entrada de Miramar, y por lo menos una vez él se mostró dispuesto a venir a la mía, en la entrada de Arroyo Naranjo. Ninguno de esos intentos se materializó y ya no será posible porque don Juan de las Cuevas Toraya murió a fines de la semana pasada. Llama la atención que la prensa no se hiciera eco del suceso. Porque Juan de las Cuevas fue y seguirá siendo uno de los imprescindibles. Lo corrobora su monumental 500 años de construcciones en Cuba, un libro de casi 600 páginas en gran formato. Como si no bastara, ahí están otros títulos suyos como Cien años del cemento en Cuba y los más recientes Las siete maravillas de la ingeniería civil cubana y Cuba: la memoria en imágenes, que fue el último que llegó a publicar. Una obra que, en conjunto, satisface la necesidad de información de ingenieros, arquitectos y constructores y llena la curiosidad del lector común; libros que amplían el conocimiento de nuestra historia y serán punto de referencia para todos los que se propongan seguir esas investigaciones. Una obra rigurosa y amena a la vez, porque su autor fue asimismo maestro en el arte de la comunicación. Nuestra relación creció en torno al trabajo. Lo procuré, por primera vez, hace ya no pocos años, en busca de una precisión sobre la barriada del Vedado y me dijo cosas que desde entonces repetí muchas veces, como aquello de que la avenida 23 se llamó en sus comienzos (1862) Paseo de Medina, por el contratista que suministraba la piedra para las construcciones del Gobierno español y que es el responsable de los huecos que todavía se aprecian en la calle F entre 19 y 21 y en 21 esquina a G; un sujeto que vivía frente a lo que sería el cine Riviera, por lo que dio nombre a la calle. Me contó además que la loma de Aróstegui cerraba la calle G, la llamada Avenida de los Presidentes, a la altura del Castillo del Príncipe, y que fue Carlos Miguel de Céspedes, el ministro de Obras Públicas del dictador Gerardo Machado, quien seccionó esa elevación para posibilitar el paso de vehículos y peatones. Como un tema lo llevaba a otro, Juan añadió en aquella oportunidad que al final de G, más o menos donde, con el tiempo, quedaría emplazado el monumento al mayor general Calixto García, pensaba Carlos Miguel erigir un monumento a Machado. Quiso la suerte que no lo acometiera. De las Cuevas era un conversador infatigable y ameno, presto siempre a colaborar con quien le solicitara alguna información. A veces la solicitaba. En el último correo electrónico suyo que recibí me pedía que colaborara con una estudiante universitaria que llevaba a cabo una investigación sobre el Bosque de La Habana. A veces, justo es decirlo, no nos poníamos de acuerdo, como cuando discutimos sobre esa zona del antiguo municipio de Marianao que se conoce como La Verbena. Para él, dio nombre al lugar el quiosco situado en 41 y la calle Ramón Mendoza, por su nombre antiguo, y que se demolió en 1955. Para mí, por una sala de fiestas donde, antes de 1910, acudía a bailar el célebre Alberto Yarini. Ya no se sabe bien qué fue La Verbena, si un salón de baile, un cabaret, una sala de cine, un bar, una cafetería… Tampoco importa demasiado precisarlo a estas alturas porque ese nombre quedó grabado en la memoria colectiva y sigue siendo punto de referencia en el panorama urbano habanero. Aunque hace mucho que no existe, seguimos oyendo hablar de gente que vive cerca de ese lugar o que cambiará de ómnibus en La Verbena. Viaje imaginario ¿Ingeniero? ¿Arquitecto? Ni lo uno ni lo otro. Este hombre que nació en 1933 y llegaría a ser Doctor en Ciencias Técnicas, hizo estudios de Economía. Quizá de su abuelo, el destacado arquitecto José Toraya —Lonja del Comercio y edificio del primer Banco Nacional, en Obispo esquina a Cuba, entre otros proyectos— viniera a nuestro amigo el amor por las construcciones. No hay que olvidar, sin embargo, que en Camagüey, en abril de 1959, comenzó a trabajar en el Ministerio de Obras Públicas como jefe del Departamento de Costo y Progreso, y que desde 1960, tanto en Camagüey como en Las Villas, se desempeñó de manera permanente en el giro de los materiales de construcción, en cuyo Ministerio fue director de Operaciones, director Técnico y jefe de Control de Producción, luego de una etapa en la que le tocó desempeñar la dirección de la Empresa Nacional de Mármoles y de la de Asbesto Cemento. Tantas responsabilidades no mataron en De las Cuevas la pasión del investigador. El funcionario no se perdió entre informes y reuniones, cronogramas y balances. Fue miembro de la Sociedad Cubana de Historia de la Ciencia y la Tecnología, de la Academia de Ciencias y de la Unión Nacional de Arquitectos e Ingenieros Civiles. Su paso por el Ministerio de la Construcción, donde se desempeñó como asesor, le permitió salvar el importante archivo iconográfico de ese organismo, que sin su esfuerzo tal vez se hubiera perdido para siempre. Con esas y otras imágenes que fue acopiando, dio De las Cuevas a conocer su libro Cuba, para guardar la memoria. Un conjunto de 258 fotografías de 139 localidades del país que permitían un viaje imaginario a lo largo de la geografía de Cuba y también de su historia. Al final del libro, publicado por la Junta de Andalucía y la Oficina del Historiador de La Habana, el autor presentaba, bajo el título de Breve reseña de las ciudades y los pueblos del álbum, un comentario a las imágenes con antecedentes históricos de cada localidad. «La importancia que concedí a aquel trabajo hizo que duplicara esfuerzos y hurgara en libros, revistas y viejos álbumes, gracias a lo cual pude reunir material para otro paseo virtual, que a muchos les traerá recuerdos, a veces nostalgia, a otros asombro y en ocasiones incredulidad ante la vista de lugares que no imaginábamos así, o de pasajes de una historia conocidos en papeles, pero que nunca se nos muestran tal como fueron y casi nos hacen testigos presenciales de hechos ocurridos hace más de un siglo», dijo Juan de las Cuevas. El fruto de ese esfuerzo es el ya mencionado libro que se titula Cuba: la memoria en imágenes, conformado por 336 fotografías de 116 poblaciones de cuyo establecimiento y desarrollo incluye el autor aspectos curiosos o poco conocidos como la fundación de Guane, a fines del siglo XVI, mucho antes de que naciera Pinar del Río, y la fundación por aborígenes, y no por españoles, de Jiguaní, hace más de tres siglos. Hay fotos impactantes en esa memoria, como la del acto oficial del inicio del derribo de las murallas, el 8 de agosto de 1863. La de la plaza de toros, de Carlos III e Infanta (1890). La de los equipos de riego de calles tirados por bueyes (1899). La del necrocomio y la antigua enfermería del presidio, demolidos en 1926 para la construcción de la Avenida de las Misiones. Las de teatros como Alhambra, Campoamor, Fausto, Carral, Olimpic y Payret, tomadas todas entre 1924 y 1928. Y otras que captan momentos memorables del acontecer habanero, como la de la calle Mercaderes vista después del incendio de la ferretería de Isasi, el 17 de mayo de 1890, y la de la llegada a Cuba del célebre aviador norteamericano Charles A. Lindbergh a bordo de su avión Espíritu de San Luis. Muchísimas fotos de sitios del interior de la Isla se recogen en este volumen de casi 450 páginas. Imposible mencionarlas todas. Pero no quiere el escribidor obviar algunas, como la de las Minas de Matahambre, Pinar del Río, en 1919. La vista aérea, captada en 1955, del Instituto Cívico Militar de Ceiba del Agua, en Artemisa. La del anuncio, en 1929, de los famosos panqués de Jamaica, en la provincia de Mayabeque. La estación de ferrocarriles de Jovellanos, en 1924. El parque y la iglesia de Ranchuelo, en 1928, y la de la Escuela Normal para Maestros Primarios, de Santa Clara, captada en 1923… De mucha cuenta son varias de las fotos que ilustran las construcciones en Santiago de Cuba. No quiere el escribidor dejar de mencionar las del parque Céspedes y el ayuntamiento, con un solo piso en esta imagen de 1901; la del antiguo hotel Venus, y la del hospital militar Príncipe Alfonso que, en días de la primera ocupación, luce en su fachada la bandera norteamericana. Muy bellos son los edificios que daban albergue a la Escuela Modelo, después Escuela Normal, el Club Náutico, el Club de Patines y el teatro Vista Alegre, todos en Santiago. Documentado inventario Como escribe la ingeniera María Cleofás Buajasán, directora de Investigación y Desarrollo de la Oficina del Historiador de La Habana, con relación a Cuba: la memoria en imágenes, hay que agradecer a Juan de las Cuevas y a su esposa, la licenciada Florinda Loret de Mola Ramos, que colaboró en la confección del libro, que contemos con este documentado inventario, resultado de casi una década de esmerado trabajo de catalogación, clasificación y digitalización del vasto fondo de negativos de cristal y celuloide que conformaron el archivo del Ministerio de la Construcción de la República —antes, Ministerio de Obras Públicas— y que hoy atesora, en su carácter de bien patrimonial, la Oficina del Historiador con el claro mandato de restaurarlo y conservarlo. Precisa la ingeniera Buajasán: «El valor mayor de Cuba: la memoria en imágenes radica en su contribución manifiesta a la preservación de la memoria histórica de nuestro país, y constituye un material de obligada consulta para los estudiosos del patrimonio cultural cubano». Lo mismo puede decirse acerca de toda la obra del hombre que acaba de morir. Esta página de Lectura contó siempre con su colaboración. A su fineza, a su fervor humanístico, a su señorío, a la sobriedad de su muerte vaya el homenaje de este escribidor que anota el tránsito de Juan de la Cuevas Toraya y lo transmuta en perdurable compañía.

3. Radio stations in the original 1956 building designed by Martín Domínguez Esteban please see

https://www.amazon.com/500-Anos-construcciones-en-cuba/dp/8460731596

4. Section you cited is applicable to verifiability "Do not use articles from Wikipedia as SOURCES." WP:CIRCULAR, yes, I agree... Maybe you can explain why you cited that specific section of Wikipedia and its relevance to FOCSA.

5. ???? Did we settle this one? ovA_165443 (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Osvaldo valdes 165443 I think we are straying too far from the original disagreement. The article is focused way too much on the construction and the design on the building. I offered my original opinion that both the "Construction" and "Distribution" section be cut down to only highlight the major points of the construction of the building. This is nothing against your contributions, I just think the information should be located elsewhere. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Those sections are appropiate in size, long enough to explain the subtle complexity of the building. You have not convinced me you understand how the building functions nor have you expllained why these two sections should be cut down. creffett cutting the Autocad plans, corridor photos and Autocad section borders on the sacrilegious; vandalism was my word. Neither of you have explained 'why shorter' (??) other than cite some Wikipedia "rule" or shown how you plan to improve the article. All I've heard: "too long." Well, no. Why don't you rewrite a better, shorter article and we'll take a look. Maybe I am wrong but I think you both are making a big deal out of nothing; but lets see your sandbox proposals! ovA_165443 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Osvaldo valdes 165443, two editors (me and LuK3) have pointed out the relevant Wikipedia policies and you do not seem interested in them. I have offered my own version of the article - it's the one you reverted. You are acting like this is "your" article and, since you have suggested that other editors present sandbox proposals, seem to expect that you expect to review changes to the articles. You have called my good-faith contributions "vandalism" and "sacrilegious" and have told me to "edit something more on [my] level," any one of which could reasonably be considered to be a personal attack. You have shown that you don't care about some Wikipedia "rule[s]", which are the foundation of how we build a collaborative encyclopedia. Speaking bluntly, none of that is collegial behavior, and I don't want to put up with it. I will not touch this article any further and will remove this talk page from my watchlist. Please do not ping me any further in this discussion. creffett (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Creffett|talk not at all, but you twist things, don't answer my questions, and obviously you and your friend misunderstand Wikipedia policies. It's not my property, granted, but I am the one that travelled to Havana, took the photos, did most of the research, wrote most of the article, drew the drawings and all you did was come in here and trash my efforst and had your friend call it "bold." You have not shown to my satisfaction that you understand the building; yes it's true, I called your "good-faith contributions" vandalism and sacrilegious, and I did tell you to edit something more on your level, however, I also noted that it was not a personal attack, just the truth as I see it. You cannot even find an article after "deep research" and your friend called Juan de las Cuevas a "no subject matter expert;" I believe the record regarding honesty, basic language comprehension, collegiality, and basic editorial skills speaks for itself; rest assured I will not be seeking your services in the near future, best! ovA_165443 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Osvaldo valdes 165443, again we are not misunderstanding Wikipedia policies but it is you who has the misunderstanding. Again, telling someone to "edit something more on their level" is uncivil and, frankly, condescending. I highly suggest reading Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, specifically WP:SUMMARY and WP:OWN. These policies and guidelines are in place to help foster a positive and productive online encyclopedia environment. If you want to further discuss this, take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You harrasing me. You have not answered ANY of my questions, it is BS, smoke and mirrors what you say, you have lied saying you did "deep research" and could not locate the Fox article. As I said, removing content you have already agreed is valuable does not qualify as bold. You did not even look at Engineering News-Record[10]? Where did you do this "deep research"; you never answered so you're lying, am I wrong? You declined to write an article version, declined to answer questions, you lied on the record, lied about a deceased scholar, you were wrong in regards "self publised blog," etc. I don't need any Wikipedia:Dispute resolution because I do not have a dispute that needs to be resolved but I will report you for harrasment next time you come back. ovA_165443 (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Osvaldo valdes 165443, I am not harassing you, I am trying to explain your edits and additions do not adhere to Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines. I tried to explain this to you more than once in this section. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop contacting me I don't consent to being harrased, thank you. ovA_165443 (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"While the pictures I removed are (presumably) pictures of the building interior"

First of all you have no business removing "pictures" as you call them since you have failed to state valid reasons for the removal and I have questioned your removal as possible vandalism. Please document your doubts (presumably)? Who is credited as the author of images of the interior? Please provide the metadata of the (presumed) pictures of the building interior"? ovA_165443 (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Osvaldo valdes 165443, since you asked for an answer above: you appear to be the author, since the majority of images on the page are credited to you as "own work." I said "presumably" because I have not been to the building in question but have no reason to doubt your statement that they are pictures of the building. I stated my rationale for removal in the section above. creffett (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for explaining! ovA_165443 (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Too many images

I hadn't seen the talk page before making an edit which reduced the images to a manageable number (since reverted without comment by ovA_165443), but I would agree with past editors that this article does not need this many photos of stairwells and corridors and magnified repetitions of floorplans. This is an excessive level of detail for a general encyclopedia article, especially when the significance of the photos is not explained - is the photographed tenant stairwell a particularly unusual example of one, or just a stairwell? Is a single diagram of the offset service corridors not enough for the reader to understand their design?

The images are available on Commons for anyone wishing to research the building in that much detail, but it's overwhelming to the reader to present a dozen photos as all being equally important to understanding the FOCSA Building. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

My explanation in the talk page has disappeared, very strange, maybe we were commenting at the same. Considering the subtle complexity of the building the level of explanatory diagrams and photos I think it is appropriate. For example, " is the photographed tenant stairwell a particularly unusual example of one? yes, it is unique, can you name another single-loaded corridor building with such a split stair allowing for different functions? "offset service corridors", they are not only service corridors but service and tenant, completely opposite in function thus giving rise to the serve/service layout of the apartments. The "magnified repetitions of floor plans" I think this clarifies the tower apartments are different in (architecture and structure) from the main apartments and from the penthouse apartments. ovA_165443 (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Some of that should go in the caption so that a layman can appreciate what they're looking at and why it's important, some of it can be expressed just as clearly (if not more so) in text. For the service corridor diagrams shown right, does the reader really need to see both of them to understand the design, or can we just use the most illustrative one and drop the other? Does it also need a photograph of each corridor, or is it enough to tell the reader in words that there is a tenant corridor and a service corridor? I don't feel like the photos differ from how I would picture a typical tenant or service corridor. We should avoid overwhelming the reader with images which aren't necessary to appreciate the article subject, per MOS:PERTINENCE. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I find these images are interesting and valuable documentation of this architecturally important building. Alistair1978 (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

They should definitely be archived somewhere for future researchers, but do you think they're the best possible selection of illustrations for a relatively short online encyclopedia article? My feeling is that we're into the "too many can be distracting" of MOS:PERTINENCE if we're illustrating a short paragraph about a two-corridor system with two diagrams and four photos. The 2D diagram seems enough for this. Including both diagrams suggests to the reader that it's important to understand both, to understand how the corridors work, and I'm not sure that's the case here.

If the reader is expected to appreciate some aspect of the corridor photos (if these are particularly surprising designs for a 1950s building in some way), we should highlight that in the caption. If they're not, I don't think the article needs them. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Lord Belbury| Noticed you replaced tag on the article and you're talking for some mythical layman? please answer all questions in the Template:"Too many photos" which you answered BEFORE you applied the template...Also, please address Alistair1978 comment: "interesting and valuable documentation of this architecturally important building".

1- What is your definition of "encyclopaedic"?

2- Should Wikipedia operate under the same restrictions as a traditional encyclopaedia (e.g. how expensive is Wiki-paper)?

3- How many photographs is "too many"? Eight? Twelve? Fifteen? Thirty? Are the number of photographs related to the length of an article?

4- That you might be able to reorganise the article to place the existing photographs in more appropriate categories within the article (or split the article's photographs into sub-articles).

5- Whether each photograph adds to the understanding of the article? Are you presuming to decide what is important for other editors? Perhaps the content of a photograph could be important to someone researching an aspect of the article at some stage in the future?

6- Whether "too many" photographs hurt an article?

7- If you could perhaps comment-out a photo (using HTML comment tags) in order to keep the photograph reference close to an article in case someone finds a reason to reinstate a photograph that you currently consider to be in the category of "too many"?

8- That by placing this template on a page, you are not actually improving an article. At the very least, please take the extra step to discuss the merits of photographs that trouble you on the article's talk page.

9- Whether your actions are going to discourage editors who have gone to the trouble of gathering original material and donating it to Wikimedia/Wikipedia? ovA_165443 (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia should strive to be comprehensible to the layman, per WP:AUDIENCE. "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible." I'd already replied to Alistair, I think we were typing simultaneously.

1. I'm not sure how that pertains to what I've said here, I haven't used that word.
2. I'm not suggesting that we should cut some images because there isn't room, I'm saying that some might be unnecessary and distracting, per MOS:PERTINENCE
3. Yes, an article should not become a WP:GALLERY, although where that point is is subjective.
4. I don't think I saw any problems with where the images were within the article, just that there were too many within some of the sections.
5. Yes, we are all presuming to decide what is and isn't important for other editors. Something being valuable to an interested researcher doesn't mean it belongs in a mid-length encyclopedia article: I've seen some great architecture exhibitions, but I wouldn't put all of the blueprints and photos and architectural model shots into their Wikipedia article, to explain an aspect of the buildig that only needed one clear illustration.
6. Yes, MOS:PERTINENCE says that too many images can be distracting.
7. I don't think that's necessary, editors can check the article history to see past versions of the article, photos and all.
8. The Commons category (linked from this article) is extremely valuable regardless of what gets used in this Wikipedia article, I'm glad to see historical photos existing and being shared. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

MOS:PERTINENCE states: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding." You feel there are "too many images," yet you don't seem to understand the section which you cite: "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate..." You have not judiciously answered the questions; #6, for instance, you post the section that you don't understand to support your argument and back it up w/: "too many images can be distracting", this begs the question! You don't apply any objective standard proving that there are too many images in fact. Please answer question #9. It is clear you did not read the questions before you placed the tag on the page (did you?), I am removing the tag because I believe you are doing a disservice to Wikipedia as well as yous "mythical layman". Would please you be so kind as to post your reply to Alistair1978? Thanks... ovA_165443 (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess I skipped #8. My answer numbered 8 is actually to 9. My answer to 8 would be that this talk page is me discussing the merits of specific photographs.

WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT says not to remove a tag while discussion is ongoing. I've already replied to Alistair and told you that I'd replied to Alistair. The "mythical layman" isn't mine, it's Wikipedia's, at WP:AUDIENCE.

You aren't offering any "objective standard" that supports including four images to illustrate a paragraph about corridors. I don't think this is really a question of objectivity, for a question as subjective as "are these the best images to illustrate this text?"Lord Belbury (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Closed bc is an invalid tag; I don't really see what the problem is; you did not judiciously answer the questions, or prove there are too many images, or post your answer to Alistair1978. As we've have tried to explain to you it is a significant building where few have access to it so all actual documentation is appropriate and especially for a layman. ovA_165443 (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem is MOS:PERTINENCE. I'd agree with User:LuK3's earlier third opinion input from May (which I hadn't noticed was talking about the exact same issue) that "ten-plus images of stairwells, hallways, and various other interior shots" is excessive for an article of this length. It would be fine in a much longer article, it's already fine in the linked Commons category where everyone will have access to the images (I've just copied the diagrams over to Commons so that they're easily found), but it's excessive to illustrate something like a single paragraph of text with two diagrams and two colour photos. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." MOS:PERTINENCE. The images are significant and relevant to the article, you have not proven otherwise. You and especially User:LuK3 trashed the article citing MOS:PERTINENCE. I came close to reporting him for vandalism; YOU ARE HEREBY WARNED. You failed to addressed "Before you apply this template, please consider... " you did not answer or judiciously address the questions BEFORE (or after) making cuts to the article thus making a mockery of the system of justice you rely on; in my mind you lack the propoer authority to place a template on the page. You do not understand the spirit of MOS:PERTINENCE I don't think that you are an architect or understand the importance of the building and are just "following rules". "I find these images are interesting and valuable documentation of this architecturally important building." Alistair1978. ovA_165443 (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The most relevant line of MOS:PERTINENCE is that "too many [images] can be distracting". I (and two other editors earlier this year) all feel there are too many images in some sections, purely from the perspective of constructing a good article following Wikipedia's style guides. No reflection is intended on how important the building is: we're all here wanting to make a better and more clearly-structured article that draws the reader in, tells them what they need to know, helps them to understand it, and guides them to where they can find further information for deeper research (be that sources or photos or floorplans). --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Lord Belbury, you removed IMAGES indiscriminately from the FOCSA Article; you have repeatedly failed to prove that as per MOS:PERTINENCE there are "too many [images] can be distracting". You have failed or cannot be bothered to answer the suggested questions judiciously. Unless you prove that there are "too many [images]," and/or identify said images, and/or prove how said images are distracting in 21 days I will remove your tag, again. If you replace the tag after you have ignored and failed to prove your point after given several chances I will issue a charge of VANDALISM. Again, I don't think that you understand the importance of the FOCSA building or the value of the images and are just "following rules". PLEASE ANSWER Alistair1978: "I find these images are interesting and valuable documentation of this architecturally important building." . ovA_165443 (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what proof you're requesting here, MOS:PERTINENCE is a general and subjective essay about how an article should be arranged, there's no explicit "building articles must have no more than two (2) photos of corridors for every 500 words of text" line I can quote at you. Three editors are of the opinion that the article has too many images for its length, two explicitly agree that MOS:PERTINENCE doesn't support including this many blueprints and interior photos. We could try a wider Wikipedia:Requests for comment if you're concerned about (per your edit summary) people "confused about Wikipedia rules" who are "trashing the article"? --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

prove that "as per MOS:PERTINENCE there are "too many [images] can be distracting" ovA_165443 (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for removing some images. Cutting it down to just the single infobox photo seems unnecessary, so I've put three back into the article body. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)