Talk:Federal Hall

message: The article states "It was renamed Federal Hall when it became the first Capitol of the United States under the Constitution in 1789, and was the second Capitol of the United States (after the Maryland State House) since independence and union under the Articles of Confederation."
Is this right?  I thought the list was as follows:
Chronological Table of the Capitals 
First Continental Congress 
September 5, 1774 to October 24, 1774:
    Philadelphia, Carpenter’s Hall 
Second Continental Congress 
May 10, 1775 to December 12, 1776:
   Philadelphia, State House 
December 20, 1776 to February 27, 1777:
    Baltimore, Henry Fite’s House 
March 4, 1777 to September 18, 1777:
    Philadelphia, State House 
September 27, 1777 (one day):
   Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Court House 
September 30, 1777 to June 27, 1778:
   York, Pennsylvania, Court House 
July 2, 1778 to March 1, 1781:
    Philadelphia, College Hall, then State House 
Congress under the Articles of Confederation 
March 1, 1781 to June 21, 1783:
   Philadelphia, State House 
June 30, 1783 to November 4, 1783:
   Princeton, New Jersey, “Prospect,” then Nassau Hall 
November 26, 1783 to August 19, 1784:
   Annapolis, Maryland, State House 
November 1, 1784 to December 24, 1784:
    Trenton, New Jersey, French Arms Tavern 
January 11, 1785 to Autumn 1788:
    New York, City Hall, then Fraunce's Tavern 
Congress under the Constitution 
March 4, 1789 to August 12, 1790:
    New York, Federal Hall 
December 6, 1790 to May 14, 1800:
    Philadelphia, Philadelphia County Building–Congress Hall 
November 17, 1800:
    Washington, U.S. Capitol 
Source:  Robert Fortenbaugh, The Nine Capitals of the United States, page 9. 
See http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_item/Nine_Capitals_of_the_United_States.htm
Cbmccarthy 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Capital of US?

message: 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 15:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject class rating

message: Current building was not the country's first custom house. See United States Custom House (New York City). Vzeebjtf (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it may have been the first purpose-built specifically as a Custom House, but I agree it should be clarified. 72.251.70.158 (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: Customs House and Treasury Building 

message: ===Lead===
There seems to be a disagreement over revisions of the lead between me and an IP editor. My proposed lead is:
The other editor's proposed lead is:
The lead before yesterday was:
I would like feedback on which wording (or combination thereof) is optimal. Epic Genius (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is incorrect.  I hope that's just a innocent mistake.  I propose no change at all to the lead as it was for a very, very long time. It is you who changed the lead and when reverted started an edit war. Please correct your post. 72.251.70.158 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What is incorrect? You removed "Financial District" in your version. I added a borough qualifier. My version explicitly states . As such, I will not correct it, as we were both reverting each other. Epic Genius (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I did NOT remove Financial District or anything else. You added it. I reverted your change to a long standing lead. I'm removing absolutely nothing.  You are attempting to add stuff that frankly doesn't make sense. The financial district did not exist in 1700.  The building was City Hall. Much later it was used by the new federal govt under the Articles and the Constitution and became known as Federal Hall. The first sentence should succinctly and very clearly state only the most important facts, what the article is about. 72.251.70.158 (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know, that's why I said "the predecessor to the current New York City Hall" and "what is now the Financial District of Manhattan, New York City", with which we can succinctly state the point in two sentences (or one, if we can do that). Epic Genius (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But why? It's totally unnecessary wordiness, not important to a clear and succinct statement about the importance of the topic. That its site is now in what we call the Financial District is irrelevant to its importance. What was wrong with the long-standing wording?  It's of national historical importance. It's neighborhood can come later and/or in the infobox. And why say one City Hall was "predecessor" to another City Hall? The importance to the article is that it was built in 1700 as City Hall. 72.251.70.158 (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Which I addressed in the edit that I made 15 minutes ago as of this revision. Then you reverted it, twice, with a misleading edit summary to "status quo". May I note that the edits I made in December 2014 are irrelevant to the status quo as of today, which would be this edit. Going back to that content issue, the location is important. I should note that "New York's city hall" is much less precise than "...in what is now the Financial District of Manhattan, New York City. It was the predecessor to the current New York City Hall...". In some cases, wordiness is better. Epic Genius (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, I prefer the longstanding version of the lead as it existed before your changes of 9 December 2014. Sorry if that was unclear. It just occurred to me that you may have forgotten you made your changes then, but they certainly are completely relevant. It is those changes that are the issue. As to substance, "New York's City Hall" is obviously in New York. It is indeed less precise than your wording, but the precise location is not necessary to the first sentence of the lead.  It is important elsewhere in the article. And it was the City Hall before the current City Hall but that is not important in the lead about the topic Federal Hall.  It too can come later if you feel it's relevant. The lead as written before your changes was better than after in my opinion. 72.251.70.142 (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but where in New York? It may be obvious to you, but less so to others. If it's New York City, you should add a link, which I have. Epic Genius (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I agree that's an improvement. 72.251.70.142 (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I'm not too concerned with image size. The policy at WP:IMGSIZE is to use standard thumbs in most cases. For exceptions, "upright" is preferred to the forced "px" values you were using. 72.251.70.158 (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, then we can set upright ratios. Epic Genius (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For exceptions, yes. 72.251.70.158 (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, these are exceptions. The upright ratios and the details of the images indicate somewhat exceptional circumstances. Epic Genius (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the lead section, image size, etc. 

message: There seems to be a disagreement over revisions of the lead between me and an IP editor. My proposed lead is:
The other editor's proposed lead is:
The lead before yesterday was:
I would like feedback on which wording (or combination thereof) is optimal. Epic Genius (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is incorrect.  I hope that's just a innocent mistake.  I propose no change at all to the lead as it was for a very, very long time. It is you who changed the lead and when reverted started an edit war. Please correct your post. 72.251.70.158 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What is incorrect? You removed "Financial District" in your version. I added a borough qualifier. My version explicitly states . As such, I will not correct it, as we were both reverting each other. Epic Genius (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I did NOT remove Financial District or anything else. You added it. I reverted your change to a long standing lead. I'm removing absolutely nothing.  You are attempting to add stuff that frankly doesn't make sense. The financial district did not exist in 1700.  The building was City Hall. Much later it was used by the new federal govt under the Articles and the Constitution and became known as Federal Hall. The first sentence should succinctly and very clearly state only the most important facts, what the article is about. 72.251.70.158 (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know, that's why I said "the predecessor to the current New York City Hall" and "what is now the Financial District of Manhattan, New York City", with which we can succinctly state the point in two sentences (or one, if we can do that). Epic Genius (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But why? It's totally unnecessary wordiness, not important to a clear and succinct statement about the importance of the topic. That its site is now in what we call the Financial District is irrelevant to its importance. What was wrong with the long-standing wording?  It's of national historical importance. It's neighborhood can come later and/or in the infobox. And why say one City Hall was "predecessor" to another City Hall? The importance to the article is that it was built in 1700 as City Hall. 72.251.70.158 (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Which I addressed in the edit that I made 15 minutes ago as of this revision. Then you reverted it, twice, with a misleading edit summary to "status quo". May I note that the edits I made in December 2014 are irrelevant to the status quo as of today, which would be this edit. Going back to that content issue, the location is important. I should note that "New York's city hall" is much less precise than "...in what is now the Financial District of Manhattan, New York City. It was the predecessor to the current New York City Hall...". In some cases, wordiness is better. Epic Genius (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, I prefer the longstanding version of the lead as it existed before your changes of 9 December 2014. Sorry if that was unclear. It just occurred to me that you may have forgotten you made your changes then, but they certainly are completely relevant. It is those changes that are the issue. As to substance, "New York's City Hall" is obviously in New York. It is indeed less precise than your wording, but the precise location is not necessary to the first sentence of the lead.  It is important elsewhere in the article. And it was the City Hall before the current City Hall but that is not important in the lead about the topic Federal Hall.  It too can come later if you feel it's relevant. The lead as written before your changes was better than after in my opinion. 72.251.70.142 (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but where in New York? It may be obvious to you, but less so to others. If it's New York City, you should add a link, which I have. Epic Genius (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I agree that's an improvement. 72.251.70.142 (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: The images do not need to be that small. They can be invoked using the |upright= parameter in the images, so I have set up the upright parameters to be 1.0, 1.15, etc. to correlate with desired image sizes on mobile devices. For an IP user, these sizes are 220px and 253px for the upright values 1.0 and 1.15, respectively. Registered users can make the size smaller or bigger, but using just |upright| sets the default image size for an IP user to 165px, which is too small for the average reader's comfort. Epic Genius (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too concerned with image size. The policy at WP:IMGSIZE is to use standard thumbs in most cases. For exceptions, "upright" is preferred to the forced "px" values you were using. 72.251.70.158 (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, then we can set upright ratios. Epic Genius (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For exceptions, yes. 72.251.70.158 (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, these are exceptions. The upright ratios and the details of the images indicate somewhat exceptional circumstances. Epic Genius (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Image sizes

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Federal Hall. 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/20120927183607/http://articles.cnn.com/2002-09-05/politics/federal.hall_1_congress-federal-hall-building?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS to http://articles.cnn.com/2002-09-05/politics/federal.hall_1_congress-federal-hall-building?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified