Talk:60 Hudson Street

Suggestion

Someone might like to update this with details from http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/60-hudson-gets-a-17-ton-new-generator-20120221/ posted in the article by —Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user

(sorry about putting that into the article itself!)

93.97.61.210 (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Packed gallery versus unpacked

An editor wants to replace the regularly formatted gallery with a packed gallery. Unfortunately, the packed gallery squashes the images up against each other, making it harder for the reader to focus on any one of them. It also crams them together so they take up less space overall, creating more whitespace to the left and the right, with the images floating in the center. Since the amount of whitespace is going to be the same whichever method is used, it's better to spread it out across the gallery, instead of concentrating it on both sides. It's much more visually balanced.

For these reasons, I believe a regularly formatting gallery is preferable to a packed gallery. BMK (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Moved from BMK's talk page

You seem to have been following me around, reverting a dozen or more of my changes to packed galleries. Your only explanation so far has been "packed galleries suck", which is not an explanation at all. Packing galleries is a new feature which you may take awhile getting used to, but it is often better, if only in that it removes all the extra white and grey space that our old galleries use, and uses that space to actually display the photos. You may not be aware that other people will see the screen differently than you do, because of all the individual choices that people make on their display and because of screen size. Packed galleries are designed to adapt better to different settings. My guess is that you have an extreme setup - perhaps a very wide screen with small type size, or a very narrow screen with a very large type size. You need to check out how the galleries look with different set ups. Nobody has appointed you Wikipedia's Chief Aesthetic Officer. You need to explain what your problem is with packed galleries. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not following you around, any reverts to packed galleries came about because those pages are on my watchlist. If you look, I suspect you'll find that for the majority of them many of the images in the article are mine, taken and uploaded by me, which is why they're on my watchlist in the first place.

BTW, take a look at the arguments you made above, and turn them around in your head, and you'll see that they apply just as much to your preferences as they do to mine, so you've shown exactly nothing.

Is there a reason you're not discussing this on 60 Hudson Street? BMK (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Some of this is personal preferences, but I'm sure you realize that there is no rule that says BMK's preferences must always be followed. Some of this is not about personal preferences: your argument is that packed galleries must always be removed, I only say that packed galleries should be used where we want to remove whitespace (you're wrong about saying they have the same amount of whitespace). I'm saying that we should try the new technology, you're arguing that it should be effectively banned. The packed feature was designed to remove the obvious surplus of whitespace in the old choices. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, I've given specific aesthetic reasons for my preference, perhaps you could do the same?

And, no, I'm not wrong about the whitespace. There's X amount of space from the left border to the stack of photos on the right. In a regular gallery with 3 images, if the images take up Y amount of spacem then the whitespace will be X1 (from left border to 1st image) + X2 (between the first two images) + X3 (between the next two images) + X4 (from 3rd image to stack), and X1+X2+X3+X4 will equal X-Y. In a packed gallery, with all other things beings equal (i.e the images are of the same width as in the unpacked gallery) you'll have precisely the same thing, only X1 and X4 (the outside borders) will be much larger, and X2 and X3 (the space between images) will be very minimal, just a strip between the images. Still Xi+X2+X3+X4 will still equal X-Y, because X is defined as the space between the left border and the stack, and Y as the space taken up by the images, and the formatting of the gallery doesn't change either of those values.

You are also incorrect that my argument would always result in the removal of packed galleries. My argument is based on a neutral evaluation of the visual value of the alternatives, and if a packed gallery looks better that an unpacked gallery, it would be the obvious choice. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that packed galleries are always superior, and I'm an old fuddy-duddy who doesn't like them because I haven't gotten used to them. In this, you couldn't be further from the truth. I have jumped on any number of new formatting capabilities (new because of updated software or new simply because I hadn't known about them before) and used them in my improving of article's visual aspects. Packed galleries are good to know about, and will without a doubt be useful in some situations -- this, however, is not one of them. BMK (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, it's considered impolite to move discussions from a user's talk page without asking their permission to do so. Please don't do that again. BMK (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought it might be useful to have a visual display of what's being discussed. Below is a composite of screenshots on a 1366x768 screen. The top is the regaruler (unpacked) gallery, and the bottom is the packed galery:

Regular (unpacked) gallery on top, packed gallery on bottom (as formatted by Smallbones)

To my eye, the images in the regular gallery are fairly evenly distributed in the available space between the left border and the photo on the right, as is the whitespace, but the packed gallery is more like an island of images floating in a sea of whitespace. BMK (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 08:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• 60 Hudson Street
• 32 Avenue of the Americas

)

• ... that 60 Hudson Street and 32 Avenue of the Americas, two Art Deco skyscrapers designed by Ralph Thomas Walker, are now both major internet and data hubs? Source: NY Times 1991 (both), Baxtel (32), Gizmodo (60)
  • ALT1:... that Ralph Walker designed 60 Hudson Street, the former "Telegraph Capitol of America", as well as 32 Avenue of the Americas, once the world's largest long-distance communication hub? Source: NYCL (60) p. 3, NYCL (32) p. 1
  • ALT2:... that 60 Hudson Street, the onetime "Telegraph Capitol of America", is five blocks north of 32 Avenue of the Americas, once the world's largest long-distance communication center? Source: NYCL (32) p. 1, NYCL (60) p. 3, NY Times 1991

• Reviewed: 1592–93 Malta plague epidemic and Madeleine Korbel Albright Institute for Global Affairs
• Comment: Any other suggested hooks, even individual hooks for either articles, are also appreciated.

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 23:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC).

• I'm actually surprised this still hasn't been reviewed yet! Expanded way over fivefold. QPQ for 2 pages. Excellent sourcing. Hook under 200 characters that combines both articles. No copyright violations. Good job.