# Talk:Manufacturers Trust Company Building

I'm going to move the page to the 510 Fifth Avenue name for a few reasons. First, 600 Fifth Avenue, formerly the Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company Building, is also a New York City landmark, so I want to avoid confusion on that score. Second, Docomomo, the World Monuments Fund, and SOM all use the street address. While either name would probably be fine, I think the street address is best for these reasons. Neutralitytalk 07:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the article back for two reasons.  The first is that the building is only notable - which means it only has a Wikipedia aricle -- because of its historic status, and in historical preservation circles, it's known by the name "Manufacturers Trust Company Building",  The second is that you did not even attempt to get a consensus for the move, but instead did it yourself without sufficient time for response by other editors.I know that you created this article, and I verymuch appreciate your effort in doing so, but that doesn't give you ownership of it, something which you, as an admin, must surely be aware of.  That is even more the case when another editor, myself, has contributed at least as much to the article as you have, perhaps even a bit more so.So, all this being the case, if you want the article to be moved, I suggest you file an RM, just like any other editor, and we can discuss it.  In the meantime, however, the article needs to stay at the name under which it is recognized by, for instance, the NYCPL. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll respond here, rather than on my talk page, as it's the same comment. Obviously, neither you nor me "owns" this article - would never suggest otherwise.
Note that "filing" a requested move is not required for "every other editor": "If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." Now that you bring up some points, obviously I'm more than happy to discuss.Neutralitytalk 08:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Neutrality, please don't be disingenuous, it doesn't become you. You created the article under the name "510 Fifth Avenue" and I moved it when I got involved, giving the reason (IIRC) "this is name the building is known by the NYCLPC" or something similar to that. You had to know that moving it back to "510 Fifth Avenue" would be contentious to me, and yet you did it anyway, without notification or waiting a proper period of time. I don't want to make more of this than it it worth, but in all the time I was expanding the article, adding images and so on, I never got as much as one comment from you, which gaveme the impression that you weren't happy that the article you created was being fleshed out, but instead that you resented someone else working on "your" article." If you tell me otherwise, I am more than happy to AGF, but that's the way it appeared to me at the time, and it made me just a little uneasy that you never communicated to me about the article which we were working on together. That seems, to me, like not the best paradigm of how collegiality and cooperativeness works, but since there were few conflicts, I let it pass. Now comes this name change, out of the blue, and, I have to say, it merely reinforces my impression that you were not very happy to have another editor working on "your" article.If I've misinterpreted your attitude, then I sincerely apologize, and I hope that you and I can, going forward, work together harmoniously on this and other articles. My aim is only to improve Wikipedia, and I assume that is yours as well, and I hope that we'll be able to do it together when our paths cross again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Please, assume good faith. I've already said I didn't mean to offend you or step on toes, although I seem to have. The accusations about ownership, etc. - that doesn't help anyone.
So let's slow down a bit (both of us). We're both dedicated to the project. This is an issue of importance to you, I can tell; looking at your edit history, had I thought about it a bit more I would have consulted you. I agree that we can work together and see each other's side. Neutralitytalk 09:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm very glad to hear that, and I'm anxious and willing to work with you in helping to improve this article and the encyclopedia in general. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Now, on to substantive matters: shouldn't the architect's and owner's usage be important considerations here? Vornado, which owns the property, uses uses the 510 Fifth Ave designation, as does SOM (linked above). The article on Willis Tower, for example, is at Willis Tower, rather than the former name Sears Tower; this seems to me to be an example of how, given two names, the modern one should be most favored. Neutralitytalk 09:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
No, the architects and owner's usage has no bearing on what we call it.  Again, if this building didn't have historical value (which mean, obviously, architectural value) it wouldn't have an article here at all.  There are hundreds of buildings on Fifth Avenue, and I've taken pictures of a small minority of them, but each one has a Fifth Avenue address.  That is not sufficient to qualify those buildings for Wikipedia articles.  The building must be of historical or architectural value, and the folks who determine that -- in this case the NYCPL -- have designated the building under its historical name the "Manufacturers Trust Company Building".  In terms of why we give this building an article that is its "common name"; it differentiates this building from the buildings that surround it, all of which carry a Fifth Avenue address. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, of course there is nothing distinguishing about being on Fifth Avenue. But there is nothing distinguishing about being a :Manufacturers Trust Company Building either, as there were more than a couple of those.
Really, when determining a name, my inclination (and I think our past practice, too) is to look at relevant "common use" among all authorities - so I think certainly books, newspaper articles, NGO/civil society usages, the name as given by historical societies and on registries/landmarked buildings list, etc. should play a role, along with the usage by the owner, operator, architect, etc.
Are you suggesting that the list as given in the landmarks list should determine our name for a piece?  Because I think Wiki has hundreds and hundreds of articles that are under different names as the ones that they are listed as on the registries. To give a totally random example, the H Street Playhouse is listed under that name even though the NRHP lists it under the Plymouth Theater name. Neutralitytalk 09:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't comment on the "H Street Playhouse" vs. the "Plymouth Theater", since I'm not familiar with them.  If you think it's listed under the wrong name, get a consensus on the talk page to move it. Otherwise, I just have to say other stuff exists.In the case we're actually talking about, your initial statement is incorrect as far as landmarked buildings is concerned.  This building is the Manufacturers Trust Company Building, and it is the only building by that name that I am aware of.  There is a Manufacturers Hanover Trust Building, but the NYCLPC doesn't have any problem differentiating between them, and I'm not sure why we should either, anymore than we have diffcultly differentiating between any two buildings of similar, but different, names. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Nope, this building (510 Fifth Avenue) is also known as the "Manufacturers Hanover Trust Building" - see, in the NY Times, Preservationists Win a Battle Over Former Manufacturers Hanover Trust Building and Manufacturers Hanover Trust Landmark Battle, or here in the WS Journal: " With the Manufacturers Hanover Trust building, we have a structure..." Hence the clear ambiguity with 600 Fifth Avenue, also a former Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company Building. Neutralitytalk 09:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Re Plymouth: no, that's exactly my point. The article is under a title other than that listed on the National Register - and that's perfectly OK, because that's the common/modern name. It's a precedential argument. Neutralitytalk 09:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, yes. Please see:
New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission; Dolkart, Andrew S.; Postal, Matthew A. (2009). Postal, Matthew A. (ed.). Guide to New York City Landmarks (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-28963-1.
White, Norval; Willensky, Elliot; Leadon, Fran (2010). AIA Guide to New York City (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19538-386-7.
These are authoritative sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, what about them? Not sure I follow. Neutralitytalk 10:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
At the time that the building at 510 Fifth was built, the Manufacturers Trust Company had not yet merged with the Hanover Banl & Trust Company.  When 600 Fifth was built they had, and the company was named at that time "Manufacurers Hanover Trust", as it was not named earler. That's why the earlier building is the "Manufacturers Trust Company Building" and the later building is the "Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company Building", because the company had different names at the time each was built.  If newspapers screw up the names, that's lamnentable, but it's not sufficient reason to change the names here.  These buildings are notable only because of their historicity, and it behooves us to use the names under which they have been landmaked.  "510 Fifth Avenue" is just another building on Fifth Avenue, but the "Manufacturers Trust Company Building" at 510 Fifth Avenue is a historic landmark. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not "newspapers screwing up the names" - the building *absolutely was* known as Manufacturers Hanover Trust (Company) Building at various times. (The building was known as a wide variety of things: not only Manufacturers Trust Company Building and Manufacturers Hanover Trust (Company) Building, and 510 Fifth Avenue but also "Chase Bank Building" - see here, here, and here). Is your position that the "original" name of the building should be considered the real name?
I think your critique that "Manufacturers Trust Company Building" is a historic building while "510 Fifth Avenue" is just a modern building would carry a lot more weight if they were not exactly the same thing - different terms for the same building. (I could totally see your point under different scenario, where building X is destroyed, and a totally separate, less notable/nonnotable building Y is built on the same spot - X would likely be a better name under those circumstances). (Note many of the sources refer to the former Manufacturers Trust Company Building).
Here's how I'm sort of seeing it, summarized: (1) because of the mergers, the building was formerly known under a wide variety of names (at least 3 - more if you include variations like omitting/including "Company," "Branch," etc.  (2) The building's notability is ongoing: it is notable now just as it was when it was built and when it was landmarked. (3) The modern term referring to the building - the very same building - should carry at least some weight, especially when it is used by important sources (NY Times, the architecture orgs, etc.) (4) here, it has the advantage of being precise and not used for any other notable building. (In contrast to various Manufacturers Trust/Manufacturers Hanover/Chase buildings - there are a number of those).  Neutralitytalk 10:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

 So, how would you feel about the article being moved to "Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company Building at 510 Fifth Avenue"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Or "Manufactuers Hanover Trust Building (510 Fifth Avenue)" Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, that's an interesting proposal. I think it has a lot of merit, actually. Let me take some time to think about it? Neutralitytalk 10:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, I look forward to your thoughts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Manufacturers Trust Company Building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014031817/http://www.wmf.org/journal/510-fifth-avenue-revisited to http://www.wmf.org/journal/510-fifth-avenue-revisited
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014134817/http://www.waltlockley.com/trust/trust.htm to http://www.waltlockley.com/trust/trust.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)