Talk:Albuquerque Plaza

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 03:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

discussion closed with no consensus to merge --emerson7 23:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

---

I am proposing a merger of Hyatt Regency Albuquerque into this article. We don't need a separate article about each tower; even far more noteworthy multi-tower complexes like the Petronas Towers and World Trade Center are covered in single articles. As it stands, the two articles overlap substantially. Camerafiend (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• oppose unlike the towers you list above, these two towers have completely different funtions, management, etc. further an hotel and an office building use completed different metrics for comparisons within and outside wikipedia. --emerson7 02:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• While it is true that the two towers are now separately owned, the complex was built as a single project and originally had a single owner. The towers are really not even separate buildings as their first two floors are shared. I don't feel like it is a big deal that the towers have different uses; other mixed-use developments which include both office and hotel components are covered in single articles. My main concern with having separate articles is the large content overlap between them. Currently the Hyatt article is a virtual duplicate of the Albuquerque Plaza one, and I am not convinced this could ever not be the case. The towers were designed by the same firm and built at the same time as part of a single project, so most of their history is the same. I just don't think the Hyatt tower has enough coverage that is independent of the complex as a whole to justify a separate article. Camerafiend (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. They are part of the same project, and the two articles already have most of the same info. PerryPlanet (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The two articles as well as the two buildings are different enough that they should remain the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.118.228 (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support merger. It's one mixed use complex. By the photo, the architecture is the same, and I see no purpose of keeping separate and duplicative. I could be moved, possibly, if there was assertion of imminent separate development of the articles, and some identification of what actually would need to be covered separately. But I don't see any such assertion or identification, and I don't see any sources readily available for further development, and hence it just seems best to merge. --doncram (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• both article are/have already 'diverged' significantly...a merger is inappropriate and the ill advised.--emerson7 23:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'll note that this discussion was pointed out to me. Basically what we have is two articles and the two tallest buildings in the state. In my mind that makes both buildings notable as long as we have reliable sources. There is also some naming confusion with the tallest building sharing a name with the project. What I don't know is how Albuquerque Plaza is used locally. Is is for the pair of buildings or the main tower? If it is for the main tower, then clearly the article should be about the tallest building in the state. If it is about the plaza, then you have difficult choice. Either creating three articles that are all rather short or creating one large article that to me should not be allowed to exist. So, I think three articles is the better choice. The other option is to restructure the plaza article to be more about the building and add a section there about the development. In the end, you have three notable topics so why not have three articles? I'll also add that if this was combined, you are going to need a lot of categories on the redirects. Also you will still need to create a redirect for the complex or the tower that share a name since incoming links should be able to indicate which of the two entities they are intended to link to. There are main articles on projects where the overview is covered in one article and each building has its own article, even if they are owned by the same developer. And for the record, the World Trade Center was not covered in one article, it was covered in 77 articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sigh. Valid arguments on both sides here. The way I see it, this is basically a choice between 2-3 short articles with quite a bit of overlap and a single, more thorough treatment. Apart from the redirect problem (which is not insurmountable), I still think this would make more sense as one article. The complex and its architecture and history could be described, and then we could have sections about the two individual towers describing their uses and any other information that doesn't apply to the whole complex (which I don't think is very much). If a lot of new information comes to light in the future we could split this back out, but right there just isn't very much. Btw, my only point with the WTC example was that 1 WTC and 2 WTC don't have separate articles (despite being separate buildings, and the two tallest in the state). Camerafiend (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• 1 WTC and 2 WTC are a tad different. They had the same owner and were virtually identical in size, appearance and use. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. One is an office block, the other is a hotel. To most people they are merely an office block and a hotel that happen to be near each other. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is US Eagle Plaza (or Tower) the name of the single building

In lists of largest buildings, this is referred to simply as Albuquerque Plaza. However, just as One World Trade Center is the tallest US building, rather than the generic World Trade Center, it seems we should be using the name of the actual building rather than the complex. Not being from the area, I don't know enough about this to add information. CTBUH just lists it as Albuquerque Plaza as well, but that doesn't mean they are well informed on this building. Please note here if the name should be reorganized. Thanks! JeopardyTempest (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering this too. The owner of the building, Allegiance Realty, still has it listed as Albuquerque Plaza, so for now I am going to assume the name has not been changed despite US Eagle acquiring signage rights. Camerafiend (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)