Talk:Wrigley Building

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Photography request: British consulate in the Wrigley Building

If anyone wants to do this, please take a photograph of the entrance to the British Consulate on the 13th floor of the Wrigley Building. The photo would be for this article. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Tenant list?

I get the foreign consulates being listed as they are government related. But if we start adding to the list with every tenant, it starts to look like a directory page for the building's management company. Any thoughts on the matter?Ryecatcher773 (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image

@GenQuest, CSZero, and John M Wolfson: I am looking for opinions regarding the infobox image. I propose changing the existing photograph to this photograph, which is extracted from a quality and featured image. As a featured image, the photograph is "considered one of the finest images" on Commons. The existing infobox image demonstrates poor composition, shows the building undergoing maintenance, and has significant perspective distortion. It also fails to capture the building's two tower nature. Thoughts? Filetime (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Option 1 (cropped Featured Img./QI)

Option 2 (original image)

Thank you for starting a conversation. Being from Chicago, I can assure you that the usual and iconic image presented of the Wrigley building is from the front, facing the Michigan Avenue bridge and viewed across the river. This is a standard view as seen in newspapers, magazines, and history books that I grew up with. At night, the front of the two towers are illuminated, and that is the huge presence the building makes as one comes up the river, drives down Wacker, or goes north on Michigan out of the Loop. The side-view indeed shows the two towers and other details, but is not as well known, even in Chicago, and that side is pretty dark at night—not as majestic a presence as the front-view. That picture could certainly be used in the gallery, but not as the Lede photo. Pictures of buildings in the lede should be of the front of the building, not the side. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Main Photo Editing war????

@Filetime @GenQuest We need to discuss the main info-box image. I updated it to Wrigley Building Aerial.jpg from Wrigley Building - Chicago, Illinois.JPG. I updated it to a newer photo, for many reasons, but you reverted it. My main reason's for changing it was due to it being from 2006, with it being from 2006, it's not a updated photo, but Wrigley Building Aerial.jpg is from 2021, which represents the building much better. It also is a higher quality image, and as @Filetime said, "The existing info-box image demonstrates poor composition, shows the building undergoing maintenance, and has significant perspective distortion." I think that the photo I updated is a much better photo, which solves all of the current problems, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this topic. Lectrician2 (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

As explained above, these lede photo changes should be discussed. Firstly, the building is 95 years old. The long-standing article Lede picture doesn't need an "update". It is the iconic, best known face of the Wrigley, and has been as far back as the 1940s. Filetime changed it, and I changed it back to the stable version, where BRD should have kicked in, but which FT ignored. Secondly, the picture that you placed, again without any discussion, is—respectfully—just awful. It doesn't feature the building at all, in fact, it pretty-well gets lost in it, and again, doesn't really show the Wrigley's "face." That is my reasoning for opposing those changes. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 15:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand your comment that the photo I updated was "busy", so I went looking for a better photo that doesn't have maintenance work going on. I found this that has a lot better lighting :Wrigley Building 1 (31887261212).jpg. It has a person pointing in the foreground, but we could edit it out, and then create a much better info box photo for this article that we can all agree on. Thanks! Lectrician2 (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Not knowing the building, I find "Option 1" the best and most interesting. Imo, the old one is where the building gets lost to to the ones behind, and it disguises the two-tower shape. Also the clock has no hands. Both are better than several of the other photos in the article. The one with the pointing person should be cropped. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

As @GenQuest stated, it's just not the known face, also, the "option" was from a former talk page. But anyways, anyone from the chicagoland area knows it from the front, facing Michigan avenue, it's just a much more iconic photo, and more known, the option 1 just doesn't particularly work well. But option 2 I realize now is even worse, it doesn't even have clock hands, at this point i'm dedicated to changing this photo, with consensus among all of us. Lectrician2 (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Photo 2 is grainy and poorly composed and shows the building without clock hands. I know the facade shown may be more recognizable, but I think the difference in quality justifies the choice of Photo 1 as the lead image. Filetime (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@GenQuest@Filetime@Johnbod At this point we can all agree that the old photo is outdated, and does not represent the building to it's fullest due to it's maintenance. I propose 2 options to change it too.

1. Chicago September 2016-14 (cropped).jpg
2. Wrigley Building Aerial - Cropped.jpg

Pros of #1, it's a beautiful image with great lighting, and just good all around.

Cons of #1, it doesn't showcase the building from it's more well known face, which faces the Michigan Avenue Bridge. Hence not representing the building to it's fullest.

Pros of #2, It showcases the building from it's main front, and it's most up to date from 2021

Cons of #1, it doesn't look as nice in terms of lighting, and even as cropped it looks a tad bit busy.

Please put your thoughts below so we can resolve this, If we can't get at least a majority, I think it would be best to keep it at it's current image, as imperfect as it is. Thanks! Lectrician2 (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• • • If we must change the lede photo, then the one you found with the pointing person cropped out should work, as far as I am concerned. It's not optimal, but next time I'm back in Chicago, I'll go by some Sunday morning and get a properly framed picture. (Any of the others discussed here, such as the double tower design, would be fine placed in the article or article gallery, by the way.) GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

      Sounds like a plan! Lectrician2 (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Don't mind the new lede pic, but the 2nd pic is useless (from Trump's roof), & "Option 1" or similar should be included to make plain the actual layout of the building, which the new lede still disguises. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

    That's a great idea, i'l do that! Lectrician2 (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)