Talk:Sidney R. Yates Federal Building

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

pic question

Does this pic apply? --do ncr am 14:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Nope -- been there, and it's a completely different building.~~--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, got confused -- I thought it looked like the Mint building at 9th and H NW. Still don't think it's the right one, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the intersection (14th St SW and Independence Ave) in Google Streetview, it has to be the brown-colored stone building covered in scaffolding. I've never noticed it myself -- possibly because the Agriculture building across the street is more imposing. --Orlady (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. The picture above is diagonally across the intersection, down at the other end of the building. [1]--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's now named the Sidney Yates Building. Image on the right! --Orlady (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main building is named The Sidney R. Yates Federal Building, but the listing is for the entire complex. Should it really be renamed? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly an RS, but this page on Wikimapia indicates that the Yates name applies to the whole shootin' match: http://wikimapia.org/1785184/Sidney-R-Yates-Federal-Building --Orlady (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah. As someone who's edited Wikimapia, I'm _way_ hesitant about even _mentioning_ it, never mind using it as a source. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

demolition information

An editor added assertion that the building complex has been demolished. The source referenced states ( i think this is the whole passage and only passage relevant):

Auditor's Building Complex
14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW
Built 1878-80 (James G. Hill, architect); addition 1891, demolished 1988; addition 1900-01; DC designation
2/26/74, NR listing 4/27/78; US ownership

Does that mean all 5 buildings were demolished in 1988, or that the 1891 addition was demolished, I don't know. I tried clarifying for the moment that what is known from this is that some portion of the complex was demolished in 1988. Editor is i think insulting me by calling my edit "original research". Editor obviously must agree that some portion of the complex was demolished in 1988, so how he/she extrapolates to idea that i am adding made up stuff, i don't get. --do ncr am 18:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Doncram, I made a mistake. I misinterpreted the source. All fixed now -- and we even have info on what was torn down and why. Sorry to have falsely accused you. However, things could be so much nicer if you could work out a more complete story on these topics before you put new articles in mainspace. --Orlady (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowledging a mistake and for acknowledging your having falsely accused me in your edit summary. Your followup remark here is not the takeaway i see from this, however. --do ncr am 20:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]