This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flatiron Building article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers 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.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles
No - The replacement image was taken from directly in front of the building. Because the Flatiron Building is a slim triangular structure, this vantage point does not show it to great advantage. The current image, on the other end, because it is taken from above and to one side, shows not only the unusual shape of the building (which is one of the reasons for its notability) but clearly shows the design of one side's facade, while still showing the other side sufficiently. Only the rear of the building on 22nd Street is not seen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Well, this is a bit silly, but here goes. Move my comment wherever it needs to go. I favour image #2. Don't need to see the top of the building, since we don't see it from the street. It also makes it harder to discern its scale. - Seasider53 (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - The first image is of lower technical quality and shows the image as very few people ever see it. The second, however, captures the streetscape as it is most often experienced. Filetime (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mild no - although street-level is usually preferable for familiarity, the triangular shape is the single most iconic feature of the building, and something that cannot be captured in a single 2D image, except from above. As well, the street shot is visually busy, with an ad, biker, lamppost, and construction drawing away from the subject. The aerial shot's subject is unmistakable. ɱ(talk)21:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - view from street level seems more natural and easier to recognize. Also the building stands out more from the neighboring buidlings. MB22:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No – Image #1 is superior to #2 in the way it conveys the height and shape of the building. You can actually see that it looks like a flatiron (in case you know what a flatiron is). The light is better in #1, while #2 has some mish-mash of stuff (taxis/traffic, construction, traffic lights, etc.) at eye-level, distracting from and even partially blocking the lower floor or two. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits)23:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No Aerial view more clearly shows the architectural attributes that pertain to the uniqueness of the building, which is one of the key features of the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't really see what the second image does that the first does not already do in terms of showing off the building's unusual attributes as well as the effect it has on the city around it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail)04:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No - For me, the most suitable images for articles about buildings are those which best illustrate the structure’s features, though they may not always be the most aesthetically pleasing. The first does that, both for the building and for its setting, better than the second. Actually, in this case, I think it is also the more pleasing shot. KJP1 (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes let's be real, the only reason (most) people care about the Flatiron is its unique perspective when viewed from street level. The current shot is great for a mid-article visual refreshment, but it doesn't convey the most interesting aesthetic feature of the building very well, especially against a murky backdrop of concrete and masonry. Headphase (talk) 07:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No keep 1 aerial I came here following a notice at WP:NYC. Image 1 is of lower technical quality and resolution whereas 2 is better in that sense, but 1 is the better angle and composition. I could support a ground photo which communicates the strangeness of this building, but image 1 in this case does that well whereas 2 is so-so for showing the odd shape. Blue Rasberry (talk)20:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. In my opinion, we should keep image (1) as, even though it is technically of lower resolution, it clearly shows the triangular prism shape of the building. This aspect is lost on image (2) which is taken from the ground. Honestly, street level views are a dime a dozen, whereas an aerial view is not too common. Epicgenius (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The first image is most recognizable and is of better quality. The less common view should be included elsewhere in the article. Spudlace (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No The current image gives more information about the building itself, while still preserving much of the view of the street. Since the subject of the article is the building, readers should be presented with as much information about the building itself like the roof. TrueQuantum (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No The current semi-aerial pic gives a better overall impression and more clearly illustrates the unusual and iconic nature of the building (and how it got its nickname, I assume). Pincrete (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The #2 street-level image in the lede since it is the most well known and recognizable view. The #1 aerial view should be later in the article since it is of high-quality and best demonstration of the shape. Since the article is of general interest, then the common view seems best suited. If the article was focused for an audience of architects and engineers, then the image that is closer to an isometric projection would be best in the lede. - DutchTreat (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[Well, this is a bit silly, but here goes. Move my comment wherever it needs to go. I favour image #2. Don't need to see the top of the building, since we don't see it from the street. It also makes it harder to discern its scale.] - Seasider53 (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that the image was change by Beyond My Ken (albeit a long time ago) without consensus (before and after), ironically from an aerial view to one from one side of the building, at street level. (I don't think I missed a discussion on the talk page. There's no archive, and there's a year-long gap in discussion topics from around that time.) Also, someone else changed it from the one he'd selected, which didn't go over well. Are we having Ownership issues here? - Seasider53 (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what the purpose of this comment is, aside from muddying the waters and poisoning the well, but Seasider53 has presented some poor research. My edit to add the current image to the article took place on 17 March 2010, [1] which is more than 11 years ago (which is more than half of Wikipedia's lifetime), so the image has easily established itself as part of the status quo of the article. (The diff offered above which is characterized as "not going over well" wasn't about the lede image, it was about a number of other changes which adversely affected the layout of the article, an issue which was eventually settled.) Changing the status quo, when it is disputed -- as this change was -- requires a consensus of editors.
I will gladly admit to a feeling of WP:STEWARDSHIP about this article, considering that, according to this, I am responsible for 44.1% of the authorship of the article, as well as being the top editor by number of edits and amount of text added. [2] If you believe that my STEWARDing of the article has become an WP:OWNERSHIP issue, I suggest that you file a report at WP:AN/I, which is the proper venue for such complaints, not here in an RfC about a specific question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, thinking about it, there are many buildings whose individuality is only apparent from a distance, or aerially, or from some pov other than 'upfront upclose street view'. In this case the unique-ness of the building is more apparent in the semi-aerial pic - which incidentally includes illustrating the reason for the name. The sense of scale seems better too. Pincrete (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Was Roebling owned by Murder Inc. or was Murder Inc one of the original tenants of the Flatiron Building:
"the Roebling Construction Company, owned by the sons of Tammany Hall boss Richard Croker, and the crime syndicate, Murder, Inc.[9]" And at any rate, the name "Murder Inc." was not invented until 1940.
100.15.127.199 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article has a lot of photos but none of them are from a frontal view angle, so I took the initiative and added one to the gallery section, but it got reverted by @Epicgenius. He said that there was already one frontal view photo in the gallery (there's indeed one, but it's from 1903 and is monochrome) and in the infobox (which is an aerial view photo).
The uniqueness of the building comes from its triangular shape, which is very explicit if seen from the northern corner. The majority of people will see the building, precisely from the Fifth Avenue and Broadway intersection with the East 23rd Street, not from the side and must certainly not aerially, so can we please add a street-level frontal view photo? --SpaceEconomist192✐ 16:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, some poor choices (discussed on this page or a recently archived one) resulted in the current situation. There was a great street-level frontal view that was in the infobox, but the current aerial one was the choice made. Seasider53 (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mihaela.deliminkova. Peer reviewers: Danielleelbaum, Sarah Alers.
