Talk:The Pierre

Commercial

Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces has assigned User:Maxone999 the job of inserting enticing copy from the hotel brochures, and copyright corporate photos into all its Wikiopedia entries: see these User Contributions. Someone with more tact than I have needs to explain.--Wetman (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Height

Since this building is in the U.S., shouldn't its height be mentioned in feet? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

File:The Escoffier Suite.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:The Escoffier Suite.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Disputed "In popular culture" entry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user Beyond_My_Ken undid my contribution that the character Joe in the film Joe Versus the Volcano was a guest for one night in The Pierre Hotel, on the basis that it wasn't notable, yet he agreed that the shooting of a tango scene in The Pierre was notable. <PA redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksoileau (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The difference is notability comes in the fact that the tango scene was shot at the hotel. If Ksoleiau has a source that says that the scene in Joe Versus the Volcano was also shot in the hotel, and was not simply a reference to the hotel, or a studio set which was putatively The Pierre, I have no objection to the item being restored, as long as it is with a citation from a reliable source to confirm that fact. Unfortunately, neither IMDB or TCM.com list The Pierre as a filming location. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, titles of talk page sections are supposed to be neutral, and all editors are required to avoid making personal attacks, so I have altered the title to something neutral and descriptive and redacted the comment directed at me. Please remember to focus on content and not on editors. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

With almost no effort one can find evidence (e.g. http://onthesetofnewyork.com/joeversusthevolcano.html ) that the scene was actually shot at The Pierre. It is beyond my ken why someone would undo an edit without taking minimal steps to verify that the undo was appropriate. Kerry (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but an exterior shot of the Pierre is in no respect "evidence" that the scene in question was shot inside the Pierre. It's perfectly normal for films and TV shows to shoot real exteriors as "establishing shots" and then shoot the connected interior scenes in the studio. Now if there are shots of the lobby, etc., that's a different story entirely, films generally wouldn't go through the expense of re-creating that, but a room, even a suite? It's much more convenient to build a set rather than to be constrained by the realities of a real room, or suite of rooms. (In a set, for instance, walls can be removed to allow camera angles than aren't possible in a real room, and lighting a set is significantly easier than lighting a real room. You also don't have to worry about the crew damaging valuable furniture or decorations.)

As I said, come up with some real evidence that the scene was shot inside the hotel, and I'll withdraw my objection. (You may have to expand a little more than "almost no effort" to do so, though.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The provided link ( http://onthesetofnewyork.com/joeversusthevolcano.html ) goes so far as to give the street address of The Pierre as one of the shooting locations for the movie: Pierre Hotel, 5th Avenue and East 61st Street, Manhattan. Because I have a life, I have no interest in jumping through additional hoops imposed by a rogue editor with some kind of an attitude problem. Kerry (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unilateral Closing of a Discussion on a Talk Page?

LOL By what authority does Beyond My Ken summarily close this discussion? Why is this rogue tolerated? Kerry (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I must say it's beyond my ken why Wikipedia would permit one party to a discussion to close that discussion to further comments because he feels "Enough of this." I would appreciate a citation from Wikipedia's policy standards that would shed light on this issue. Thanks! Kerry (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I provided evidence that scenes in Joe Versus the Volcano were actually shot outside and in The Pierre. The provided link not only exhibits outside shots, but also shots from inside the hotel. It's quite sad that a rogue editor like Beyond My Ken can, apparently merely to feel powerful and important, obstruct accurate contributions to Wikipedia. Kerry (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"In popular culture" entry, redux

The editor above has once again attempted to insert a popcult item about The Pierre, and I have once again removed it as being non-notable, so I think it's worthwhile for me to say again why I believe that to be the case.

First, unlike many other editors, I am a firm believer that Wikipedia articles should engage with our vibrant popular culture by way of "In popular culture" sections, but I do understand that without some kind of standard, they have a tendency to grow like topsy. That standard should be notability, the importance of the item in relation to the subject. In this case, the question is why do I think that the editor's item -- that the Tom Hanks character spends a night in the Pierre in the movie -- is non-notable, while another item -- that a scene was filmed in the Pierre is notable.

The biggest difference is, of course, that one scene was filmed in the building, a fact that is sourced, while the other scene only takes place in the hotel, and there is no source that says it was filmed in the hotel. The editor was asked to provide some proof that the scene was actually filmed there, but was only able to show that exterior shots were made outside the Pierre. As I explained above, anyone familiar with the mechanics of making Hollywood motion pictures understands that it's quite usual to shoot establishing exterior shots, and then to shoot interior shots in the studio, by building a set which reproduces (or represents) the supposed interior. This is done for a number of reasons, which I went into detail about above. It is, of course, not always the case, sometimes interiors are shot in the actual interior (especially in episodic television, where time is of the essence), but it is so often the modus operandi of feature films, that one simply cannot assume that a scene which looks like it was filmed inside, on location, actually was. The claim that it was filmed in the hotel must be sourced to be shown to be accurate. So far, no such source has been provided, and the editor's claim that he has provided such proof is incorrect.

But, in any case, how important is this scene to the film? Well, it isn't mentioned in our plot summary in the Joe Versus the Volcano article, nor in the plot summary on AllMovies. If it isn't important enough to the film to be mentioned there, then why is it important enough to be mentioned here?

It isn't. In point of fact, the item is totally non-notable, and the editor's continued attempts to insert it without a source showing it to have notability of some sort - by showing, for instance, that the interior scene was shot inside the hotel - is becoming disruptive. (Not to mention the near-personal attacks he's been indulging in.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The editor in question can always, of course, go to WP:30 and ask for a third opinion from a disinterested editor. However, he should be warned that requests to 30 must be worded neutrally, or they will usually be rejected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hotel room rates in articles

Beyond My Ken claims that Wikipedia is not a travel guide and summarily undoes quotes of Pierre Hotel nightly prices. However, the Wikipedia article about the Plaza Hotel includes the quote "Today, the same room costs from $975 per night upwards.[5]" and no one seems to object to that. Apparently either there is no Wikipedia policy on this topic, or somebody is wrong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksoileau (talk • contribs) 11:06, 9 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Please see WP:NOPRICES #5 and WP:NOTGUIDE #2. I've removed the room rate from the The Plaza, which you could have done justy as easily, and I've also changed the title of this section, since comment titles are supposed to be neutral in tone, and yours was a personal attack. BMK (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Units

An editor is attempting to change the article to using metric units as basic, with US units as parenthesized converted units. Since the building is in the US, and the article is written in American English, with American dates, the units should be US units, converted to metric in parentheses. BMK (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)