Talk:One World Trade Center/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about One World Trade Center. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

1st paragraph is way too wordy

Each sentence is far too wordy in the first paragraph. ObesityTastesGood (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not to "Wordy" CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)CookieMonster755

Any reason for putting the word wordy in quotation marks? And any reason for writing to rather than too or was it just a typo? I agree that the intro is a little too wordy. Parts about when construction started and topped-out don't need to be there (especially now that the building is open). The part about the symbolism of 1776 feet seems fairly pointless as it means nothing to the vast majority of those reading the article (i.e. non-Americans) who will only pay attention to the height of the building in metres which has no symbolism at all.--XANIA - ЗAНИA ^{Wikipedia talk |} ^{Wikibooks talk} 20:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's a misspelling? Not everyone has perfect English and you can't expect everyone to do so. I have fixed the lede, anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Images for consideration

A friend took this photo of the Freedom Tower. To the left is my cropped version and the original photo, along with the current photo for comparison. I'd like to discuss whether this photo would be a better choice for the main photo or useful elsewhere in the article.

Proposed Replacement image
uncropped original
image currently in article

--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Yep, that should belong in this article, and did you embedded or uploaded these images? --Allen ^talk 22:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite catching the point of your question. Both the left and the middle image have been uploaded to Commons. I did a crop, but recognize my limited image skills, so wanted to show the uncropped in case someone felt that a different cropping (or none at all) would be a better image. What do you mean by "embedded"?--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Embedded image means to embed an image from an external site where you can view an image from another site. I see that your images that you uploaded was a similar job to this article. --Allen ^talk 23:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I do agree we need an updated image for the article. What about this photo for consideration?CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)CookieMonster755

Yes, we need an updated image. Sphilbrick, your images have a little too much reflection and camouflage; do you have other photos? – Epicgenius (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

A friend of my daughter took the photo, and I saw it when she visited, so this is a one-off photo. I actually thought the reflection made it a more striking photo, but obviously, opinions vary. --S Philbrick (Talk) 16:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally think it's fine. Stylistically, however, the tower blends in too much with the sky. Epicgenius (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with the current image? --Jleon (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

September 11 attacks Section

This section of the article suddenly includes the sentence fragment, "... 55 military personnel were among those killed at the Pentagon.". This information comes out of nowhere because the Pentagon attack is not mentioned anywhere in the article previously or subsequently to this fragment. It also casts doubt on whether the casualty figures quoted include or exclude the Pentagon attack (cursory research suggests includes, though the obvious implication is the numbers exclude the Pentagon attack purely by the article's context). I would have removed the fragment or clarrified, but as this is the featured article today, I decided to raise the matter here and allow someone more knowledgeable as to the casualty figures deal with it. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The section seems to be a summary of 9/11 in general and not just what happened in Manhattan. Noticeably missing is any mention of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Perhaps that should be mentioned too. Or perhaps the section should just be about what happened in Manhattan and ignore the rest of the attacks in DC and PA. That is the real question before any discussion on the statistics can take place. Of course the prose should be improved regardless. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@PointsofNoReturn: — I think the 9/11 section on the One World Trade Center page should be only about the Manhattan attacks, but that's my opinion. CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@DieSwartzPunkt, PointsofNoReturn, and CookieMonster755: I have removed the offending sentence. Nearly all the victims who died in WTC on 9/11 were civilian, so I kept that. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You are probably right that the attacks should only include civilian deaths. I am okay with removing the reference to the military deaths. Should the overall 9/11 deathtoll be listed in the section in addition to the toll in Manhattan? That to me seems like a good idea. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. This should be pretty short, for example "Overall, 3,000 people died in the attacks" (don't know exact number, but it's in the ballpark). Epicgenius (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That works for me. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. It was already in the article. I just added links. Epicgenius (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Units of measurement

Personally I would prefer Wikipedia to use only metric units of measurement because it is supposed to be a serious encyclopaedia but I accept that there are still some Americans (and Burmese) who still cling to the imperial system and its weird ways of dealing with height, weight and volume. Some attempt has been made to put the metric units in brackets in this article but there are still gaps. This is supposed to be English Wikipedia not American English Wikipedia. It should be written for the majority of the people and not just Americans. Somebody needs to put in metric equivalents for all measurements and ideally metric should come first with old style units in brackets. Also remember that English Wikipedia is not just read by native English speakers but by people learning English or those who have learnt it as a second language. Stop using confusing units of measurement please.--XANIA - ЗAНИA ^{Wikipedia talk |} ^{Wikibooks talk} 20:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Xania: That has been fixed already. It does universally use both units of measurement. The only corrections that I needed to make were to an imperial measurement for the height, where a metric equivalent was already provided earlier. Epicgenius (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Xania: This is a neutral encyclopedia. It is common practice on Wikipedia for American article to use imperial units and other articles to use metric units. All conversions are used though. What you brought up would probably be better brought up in a global discussion. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a small correction, the US uses US units, not Imperial. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2014

This edit request to One World Trade Center has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the at-a-glance fact list on the righthand side of the page, under "Design and construction", please add "MEP/FP engineer" as "Jaros, Baum & Bolles". Reference: http://www.wtc.com/about/firms JarosBaumBolles (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done. Your user name betrays that you are violating Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Further, as this is the account's only edit, it is clear that the account has been created for this sole purpose. Please see WP:COI for more information. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to add, writing about projects in which you have a personal involvement is strongly discouraged. Wikipedia should not be considered as a place to promote or advertize your own projects.Read WP:NOTSOAPBOX--Chamith (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Though the request was clearly from a single-purpose account created by the firm, I do not think there is an unacceptable COI. The editor only requested that we add JBB as the mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineer for WTC 1. We already have four firms listed; JBB and envelope consultant Israel Berger & Associates LLC are the only ones on that reference that worked on WTC 1.

I think this is a matter of giving due credit to this firm. If it had been a request to, say, add the exclusive providers of bathroom deodorizers or photocopiers, that might be self-promotion and might be COI. I think we should add JBB and Berger to the designers/engineers part of the info box. Roches (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty & One World Trade Center

What do you think of this photo? I thought this photo was a good photo, and should be included somewhere in the One World Trade Center article. What do you think, should we add it somewhere to the article? CookieMonster755 (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the contribution, but I really don't think the photo is good enough to be placed in any World Trade Center article. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response @David J Johnson:, I totally can understand why, but It does not hurt to ask :) CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My best wishes, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. This view is way too far to see the WTC. Epic Genius (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello, I know I recently posted here, but I had a suggestion. I was thinking somewhere in the article, we could include a night time image of the spire. I think the multicolor scheme really makes the tower unique. What do you think about including a nighttime lite up spire image, or is the article have to much images already? Thank you for your contributions to this article. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

We've already got a spire photo but a night shot might be better. Do you have one? Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kendall-K1: -- Here is a photograph of the spire at night on Wikimedia Commons. CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Logo

There is actually a "logo" field in Template:Infobox building. But I tried it and didn't like how it looked. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A-class

Should this article be promoted to A-class status? It seems like it is good enough to meet A-class criteria as detailed in this table. Epic Genius (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be promoted to A class Epicgenius. I tried to nominate it as a featured article but it failed to do so. CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned in the 2 FA reviews, the article is too active to have a stable, FA-qualified version. Epic Genius (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It's understandable Epicgenius. CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible Tenets

@Epicgenius: 21st Century Fox, News Corp Considering Move to World Trade Center. Maybe it could be mentioned in the article or shall we wait until they have an actually answer? CookieMonster755 (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@CookieMonster755: I think we should wait, then put it in the tenants section. Epic Genius (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Neomodern??

Would 1WTC be considered neo-modern? Personally, I wouldn't say it necessarily has a distinct style.... Laurelpeter122 (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request Regarding Project Management

Sound reports

other uses

Condé Nast

Old Building Page

Needs discussion of design concepts

External links modified

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:One World Trade Center/CommentsTalk:One World Trade Center/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

More information Press [show] to view → ...

Comment(s)	Press [show] to view →
==Notes== Notes from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/One World Trade Center/archive1: File:FreedomTowerEvolution.gif does not conform to Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Done Per MOS:LEAD inline citations are not required for the lead except for exceptionally controversial information. Everything in the lead should be cited in the body, so for legibility's sake these cites should be removed. See also WP:CITEBUNDLE. There are MOS:LQ issues, such as building from "Freedom Tower" to "One World Trade Center," stating Done Some measurements are given with metric equivalents, others not. Done In cases such as reported revenues of US$37 million in and tower worth US$500,000 in exchange for the use it's really not necessary to append "US". Done The article needs a copyedit, perhaps at WP:GOCE. Done Just glancing at the structure, there seem to be quite a few short paragraphs, which makes things a bit choppy. This is also evident in the Key Figures section, which includes many subsections of only single paragraphs, and often very short paragraphs at that. Done – Epic Genius (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC) ==Notes 2== Notes from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/One World Trade Center/archive2: Overall, the sources used for the article include a lot of press releases, self-published sources, etc. This peculiar website is sourced four times. There just aren't the high-quality reliable sources that the FA criteria require. The "Construction" section is a very bland and piecemeal chronology: it gets to a point at which every sentence starts with "On [date]". To meet the "brilliant/engaging prose" criterion of an FA, this section would need to be much more engaging and readable; it would need to be bound together by an overall purpose and direction. "In March 2014, the tower was scaled by 16-year-old New Jersey resident Justin Casquejo, who entered the site through a hole in a fence. He was subsequently arrested on trespassing charges and apologized for the disruption, but gave no apology for trespassing." - the source cited does not say anything about apologies. And in the remainder of the paragraph, some of Casquejo's actions are qualified with the allegedly tag, but others are not, for no apparent reason. Done Some of the information about tenants seems out of date. Why do we need to know that Chadbourne and Parke were a prospective tenant in 2012? We are told that by September 2012, around 55 percent of the building's floor space had been leased. But what about now? Done The section "Port Authority construction workers" is not about the construction workers; it is about a film. The entire section is sourced to the film's website. Done Sometimes it is "One World Trade Center", sometimes it is "1 World Trade Center", sometimes it is "1 WTC". In an FA, these would need to be consistent. Done – Epic Genius (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Notes==

Notes from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/One World Trade Center/archive1:

File:FreedomTowerEvolution.gif does not conform to Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Done

Per MOS:LEAD inline citations are not required for the lead except for exceptionally controversial information. Everything in the lead should be cited in the body, so for legibility's sake these cites should be removed. See also WP:CITEBUNDLE.

There are MOS:LQ issues, such as building from "Freedom Tower" to "One World Trade Center," stating Done

Some measurements are given with metric equivalents, others not. Done

In cases such as reported revenues of US$37 million in and tower worth US$500,000 in exchange for the use it's really not necessary to append "US". Done

The article needs a copyedit, perhaps at WP:GOCE. Done

Just glancing at the structure, there seem to be quite a few short paragraphs, which makes things a bit choppy. This is also evident in the Key Figures section, which includes many subsections of only single paragraphs, and often very short paragraphs at that. Done

– Epic Genius (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

==Notes 2== Notes from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/One World Trade Center/archive2:

Overall, the sources used for the article include a lot of press releases, self-published sources, etc. This peculiar website is sourced four times. There just aren't the high-quality reliable sources that the FA criteria require.

The "Construction" section is a very bland and piecemeal chronology: it gets to a point at which every sentence starts with "On [date]". To meet the "brilliant/engaging prose" criterion of an FA, this section would need to be much more engaging and readable; it would need to be bound together by an overall purpose and direction.

"In March 2014, the tower was scaled by 16-year-old New Jersey resident Justin Casquejo, who entered the site through a hole in a fence. He was subsequently arrested on trespassing charges and apologized for the disruption, but gave no apology for trespassing." - the source cited does not say anything about apologies. And in the remainder of the paragraph, some of Casquejo's actions are qualified with the allegedly tag, but others are not, for no apparent reason. Done

Some of the information about tenants seems out of date. Why do we need to know that Chadbourne and Parke were a prospective tenant in 2012? We are told that by September 2012, around 55 percent of the building's floor space had been leased. But what about now? Done

The section "Port Authority construction workers" is not about the construction workers; it is about a film. The entire section is sourced to the film's website. Done

Sometimes it is "One World Trade Center", sometimes it is "1 World Trade Center", sometimes it is "1 WTC". In an FA, these would need to be consistent. Done

– Epic Genius (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Close

Last edited at 01:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 21:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2016

Outdated info

External links modified

Is this page ready to be featured?

Daniel Libeskind

New infobox image

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.

The result of this discussion was to Use image 2 for infobox image — usually, someone who started the discussion should not close it, however, it has been several weeks with no comments or feedback, and it is clear that image 2 is best for the infobox, and was previously used as an infobox image.

Greetings, everyone! I think it's time to officially take a poll on what image we will feature for the infobox. Recently, one of the best images we had for the infobox was removed due to a copyright violation, which is unfortunate. That is why I am starting a discussion poll, to vote and discuss on what image we should use for the infobox. There are several high quality images that we can chose from, which are displayed below. If you believe there are other images that could possibly be used for the infobox that are high quality, feel free to post them here. Again, please vote on which image is best for the infobox and is high quality and important. Cheers, ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 19:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Poll

Image 1: Current infobox image that I (CookieMonster755) temporarily added. Taken in 2014.
Image 2: Former infobox image, taken in 2013.
Image 3: View of the tower from Ellis Island, taken in 2014.
Image 4: The tower at dusk in 2014.
Image 5: The tower in 2015.
Image 6: The tower in 2014.
Image 7: The tower in 2016.
Image 8: The tower in 2015.

I think Image 5 is the best one, followed by Image 1, the current one. Nightscream (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer a pic like Image 7, which shows the height and top - but better and not as blue as the current 7. Regards to all. David J Johnson (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- David J Johnson, if you find an image similar to image 7 that you think would be a good infobox image, please feel free to post it here. Cheers, ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 02:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Weighing the merits of each image: All are passable, but Images 1 and 8 blend in too much with the sky; 1 and 5 show other WTC buildings, which is confusing; 3 and 4 seem a little dark; and 7 seems too enhanced. From vantage points, 2, 3, 4, and 7 show the tower from afar; and 1, 5, 6, and 8 show it from the ground. It depends on which vantage points one wants. I prefer #2 if from afar, and #6 if from near. It looks like far pictures are getting consensus, so I prefer #2. Kylo Ren (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I sincerely appreciate your response, Epicgenius. Please note, we are certainly not limited to just these eight photos. I just selected these because the "popped out" as viable options. If anyone here finds a good image they want to discuss/suggest, by all means post it here in the discussion. I do like the angle of Image 7, though it is way too edited and "bluey" to be pictured. If it had a normal tone, than it would be great. The upclose angles are not my favorite personally, but the image we select is not up to my personal liking, but what would be good for Wikipedia. Willis Tower and the Empire State Building do not use upclose images like image 1 and 6, but those are unrelated articles, but it is interesting to note. Cheers, ✉cookiemonster ^𝚨755𝛀 02:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  - I prefer image 2. Best, Castncoot (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2016 (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.

Architect: Daniel Libeskind?

Height Issues

External links modified

Also known as

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2017

External links modified

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2017

Confused about current name

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2018

Alignment of an image

Adjustment to Previous Edit - Clarification Servcorp and Tenants

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Copyright cleanup

Design lawsuit section

I added the following content to the page:

======Design lawsuit======

Two years before the September 11 attacks, in 1999, a Georgia-based architect named Jeehoon Park drafted his thesis at the Illinois Institute of Technology for a skyscraper design. The rough sketch of his high-rise draft, looks eerily similar to One World Trade Center's current architectural appearance.^[1] Park revealed in a lawsuit that he was a graduate student at the architectural school in the late 1990s, when his thesis dubbed "Cityfront ‘99" was reviewed by his advisor, Ahmad Abdelrazaq, an associate at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, along with Bill Baker, a second senior partner at the firm. Additionally, Park alleges that his thesis advisor had access to his design to utilize for future development. Park is suing SOM, the Durst Organization, the Port Authority, and Tishman Construction; alleging the firms ripped off his blueprints.^[2] Currently, the judge in the case, Richard Sullivan, dismissed many of the claims, but is allowing three copyright infringements on the designs to move forward in litigation.^[3]

Later, the material was reverted and taken off. This is notable subject matter that's properly sourced with a number of reputable references. Additionally, if you google the architect's name, "Jeehoon Park", a number of articles pop up as well, from other sources such as Politico, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Reuters, the Chicago Tribune etc. This is clearly notable and relevant fact based information that belongs in the article. Currently, a judge has allowed a few points of contention to go ahead in further litigation. Whether or not the case succeeds, there's isn't an appropriate reason why it cannot be included in the article. Thoughts anyone? Duranged (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Large business ventures get sued all the time, and listing every single lawsuit would clog up our business articles. If the lawsuit is successful, it can be mentioned at that time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's a relatively notable lawsuit that's been in the media for sometime now. And its not a lawsuit based on financing issues, or construction problems that don't make the evening news. This is a lawsuit based on an architectural design, which makes it stand out. I don't believe all these journalistic media outlets would be reporting about this lawsuit if it involved a pay dispute with a contractor involved in the building's plumbing. Also, it's a small paragraph. It fits neatly in the article. It's not like it's so big, that it would require a redirect to another page with an abundant amount of additional content. It's a small addition to the article, but important nevertheless. Duranged (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

References

[1]
Beltran, Lizeth (October 14, 2019). "Architect's lawsuit over One World Trade Center design to proceed". CrainsNewYork.com. Retrieved October 14, 2019.
[2]
Plitt, Amy (October 14, 2019). "Architect's lawsuit alleging One WTC copyright infringement moves forward—barely". NY.Curbed.com. Retrieved October 14, 2019.
[3]
Pereira, Sydney (October 14, 2019). "Lawsuit Over One WTC Design Barely Survives: Report". Patch.com. Retrieved October 14, 2019.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

List as the sixth-tallest building in the world

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2021

Floor numbers

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2021

Semi protected edit request

Maybe not GA?

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2022

Why the whole WTC history? Wrong article.

The content of this article reads more like a whole history of the World Trade Center, which has its own article right there. This article, on the other hand, is only about the "One World Trade Center" tower, and not the predium or franchise in general. As such, all the details and minutia from 5 decades before the tower itself existed, the terror attacks, etc. are irrelevant. The tower didn't exist, or was even planned, or proposed, at that moment in time. The photos of the previous towers, their construction, their interiors, etc. are explicitely confusing since they aren't part of the current one. I heavily propose removing all this content and beggining the timeline with the planning of the construction of *this* building (including any *necessary* references to the previous ones in "third person" style there, and not as if they were the matter of the current article, since they already have their own articles). The WTC article should handle the content of the WTC in general. --181.26.40.109 (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

First, your content above should be placed at the bottom of editors views on this page in date order - as per Wikipedia conventions. Secondly, I cannot agree with your sentiments, as it is necessary to state the history of the site and the reason the present tower is there to give a complete picture. David J Johnson (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@David J Johnson, Actually, I've been thinking this as well. The Twin Towers do not have their own article as of now, which is a defect I think has existed since the beginning of Wikipedia. When I improved this to Good Article status over seven years ago, I thought including everything about the North Tower of the old WTC would provide sufficient context. However, I now believe the current 1 WTC page should describe the current building since, after all, that is the topic of much of the page. The page needs a little restructuring at the very least, as we have a strange situation in which "history", "architecture", "incidents", and "tenants" are all level-3 subsections. Other pages like Chrysler Building and One Vanderbilt treat these as their own level-2 sections - but then again, neither of these replaced a prominent building that was violently felled.

I do think we should consider creating a new article about the Twin Towers, then condensing the info about the old tower that's currently on this page. Everything in this section is currently also in World Trade Center (1973–2001) and Construction of the World Trade Center, so I think they can be trimmed without any negative impacts until an article about the Twin Towers is created. Afterward, the context of the old tower could be combined under a level-2 "history" section. I'll put it up for discussion before making such a major edit. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree this article should be split. Just because they share a name and location doesn't mean they're the same building. Everybody who goes to this article wants to know about one building or the other, not both at once. You should start a !vote on the issue, or I can if you're busy.—Chowbok ☠ 11:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chowbok, sorry, I did not see this earlier. Yeah, a !vote on this subject would be fine. This might also affect the featured-article status of the 7 WTC article - I think that should also be split, as well as the other articles that discuss both new and old towers at WTC. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Trimming of content about previous 1 WTC

As per my comment from 10 months ago, I have now trimmed much of the content about the original 1 WTC. I did not remove the entire section - in my opinion, there is still enough context about the original complex. But the main purpose of this edit was to make "history", "architecture", "incidents", and "tenants" into level-2 subsections, similar to in other articles about NYC skyscrapers. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2022

Floor Count Controversy

Vandalism on the map

Freedom Tower is the former name?

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2024

Actual height is 1792 feet.

105th floor?

Split proposal 16 February 2024

It has been suggested that this page be split out into a new page titled 1 World Trade Center (1971-2001). (Discuss)

It is high time we opened a split proposal for this article into a separate one solely for the original North Tower. There is plenty of history and architectural merit that would warrant a separate article, the same as what was done for 7 World Trade Center (1987-2001), split from it's successor, the modern-day 7 World Trade Center. Similarly, the list of tenants would simply be transferred over to the article on the original North Tower. Previous consensus was in favor of a split as the 2 iterations of 7 WTC were independently notable. Excited to hear thoughts and suggestions. I will be suggesting the same be done for the South Tower. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Support in principle, though I think we might be able to write a combined article on the original Twin Towers. If we do decide to split out each Twin Tower as separate articles, we should move List of tenants in 1 World Trade Center (1971–2001) to 1 World Trade Center (1971–2001) instead, then split out the content. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, just as what was done for 7 World Trade Center (1987-2001)? The list of tenants would merely just be a section in each article as opposed to 2 separate list pages? And we can see if the two towers are different enough for each to deserve its own article. I anticipate that perhaps a section could be devoted to the antenna alone for the North Tower. Though if we do decide to go for the unified article, it'd necessarily have to be significantly different than World Trade Center (1973-2001). — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding The list of tenants would merely just be a section in each article as opposed to 2 separate list pages?, yes, I anticipate that would be the case. The two towers share a lot of their history and architecture so that's why I suggested a combined article. Epicgenius (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Strong support per nom and the fact that it doesn’t make sense to have one article about two different buildings.

MountainDew20 (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Support because the original tower is significant on its own and deserves a separate article. We can move over the tenants lists, although they are both pretty long so it might be better to just leave them be. Readingpro256 _{talk to me contribs} 15:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you change One World Trade Center picture into June 2024 picture 73.15.71.115 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you One World Trade Center picture into a June 2024 One World Trade picture 73.15.71.115 (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The reason why I want you to change it is because I hate the June 2021 picture so please change it 73.15.71.115 (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we can't change pictures just because you 'hate them', there needs to be a concrete reason, or pages will become instable with people changing things that don't need changing. Readingpro256 _{talk to me contribs} 03:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t hate all of them only the first one 73.15.71.115 (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

actually I don’t hate it but can you change it into 2024 One World Trade Center picture 73.15.71.115 (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually I will leave 73.15.71.115 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Poll

Summary of Changes

Suggested Change

Trimming of content about previous 1 WTC

Related Articles