Talk:World Trade Center/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

WTC 4, 5 and 6 (old)

I have worked on German Wikipedia on a list of projects of Minoru Yamasaki, architect of the WTC. Astonishingly I could not find reliable sources concerning both the construction dates of WTC 4, 5 and 6 and the involved architects. The infobox at the beginning of this article mentions 1970 as the time of construction start for WTC 4, 5 and 6 – and 1975 as the time of completion. However, Five World Trade Center gives 1970–72 as construction time and in Six World Trade Center it is stated that construction ended in 1973 (other sources mention that U.S. Customs service moved into the building as early as 1973 oder 1974 but no source mentions 1975). Only Four World Trade Center is in alignment as concerning the construction time. However, Emporis mentions 1977(!) as construction end of 4 WTC, 1975 as construction end of 6 WTC – only the entry for WTC 5 fits the date given in Wikipedia. Of course it is not always easy to define the exact point when construction of a building has ended but the differences are in my opinion too large to be traced back to those difficulties. Does someone have reliable sources concerning these buildings (maybe groundbreaking or topping out dates)? Furthermore, List of works by Minoru Yamasaki states that he designed 4, 5 and 6 WTC in association with Emery Roth & Sons – but actually I could not find sources confirming this besides Emporis that makes a distinction between Yamasaki as the design architect and Emery Roth & Sons as the architect. The autobiography of Minoro Yamasaki doesn't mention these other buildings at all but only WTC 1 and 2 as well as the original "five-acre plaza". Could it be that some sources have only assumed Yamasakis authorship of these buildings because they have been part of the original plan (in opposition to WTC 7 where obviously only Emery Roth & Sons was involved)? Could it be that Yamasaki's firm was exclusively responsible for WTC 1+2 (including WTC Plaza) while Emery Roth & Sons were for the other buildings?--Leit (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

World Trade Center (New York City, 1973)

Above is the title I propose for this article. Now the piece has to be split into two parts, per suggestions on this page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've already requested that this be reverted. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


There are multiple WTC's. So why is this article about only the New York Centre? If it is to remain an article about only the one centre, the title must be changed.101.98.175.68 (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
You may find it enlightening to look at the Move discussion below. Or, briefly, if I say "World Trade Centre" to you, what do you think I mean? You think of the one in New York destroyed in 2001. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

But what did people DO at the WTC?

The article covers well the construction and then various attacks on the WTC, but doesn't explain what the WTC was (is) used for. It says the government wanted a WTC. OK. Why? What kind of businesses were operating in it prior to 9/11? What kind of businesses are operating there now? Lot 49atalk 18:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Time to split this article into multiple articles?

Given how far along construction of the new World Trade Center is, I think it might be time to split this article into two separate articles: "World Trade Center," and "World Trade Center (original)," each with links to the other article at the top of the page.

The article as it stands is a bit of a mess. It starts out by defining the World Trade Center as "a complex of buildings under construction," clearly referring to the new complex, but then uses a picture of the original complex and proceeds to talk primarily about the original complex for the bulk of the article. This strikes me as incoherent and inconsistent, and I think it could be easily solved by splitting the article in two.

WTC was a beautiful trademark in new york. they were destroyed because some stupid people decieded to crash into them because they were jealous of the usa .

The World Trade Center has existed as two distinct complexes of buildings, and eventually it's going to have to be split up anyway. Imagine how strange it would be if, after the new building complex is complete and is well known, this article still featured an image of the original complex. I think it's far enough along in construction at this point (7WTC has been open since 2006, 1WTC is slated to open early next year, 4WTC is supposed to open this November, and 3WTC is likely going to begin rising soon) that we can safely split this up into two distinct articles, one about each complex of buildings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dense-Electric (talk • contribs) 06:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree there is some confusion, as it could also be assumed that the new World Trade Center is covered under One World Trade Center, which of course it isn't, since that article only covers the main building, not the entire complex. I will have to look into this and get back at a later stage, but feel free to make some edits or suggestions in the meantime. -- Jodon | Talk 18:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that perhaps some sort of split should occur, but not under that title. I suggest creating an article titles Twin Towers (New York). If One World Trade Center is going to have its own article, why not the original Twin Towers?JOJ Hutton 18:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I was going to tackle this but I just read the discussion further up about the WTC Intellectual Property Rights, this might conflict with any article splits (then again it might not). This is too ambiguous an area for me to get into right now. The article is connected to a highly controversial and sensitive subject. If more senior editors such as yourself don't have a problem with its current incarnation I'll leave it to you/them to iron out any major bumps like article restructuring. -- Jodon | Talk 18:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps there ought to be a separate article about each building in both complexes? That's a total of twelve articles (thirteen if the new Five World Trade Center is included), but I guess it's doable (it's not like Wikipedia is terribly limited in space or anything). The problem with referring to the article about the original complex asTwin Towers (New York) is that the "Twin Towers" usually refers just to the original One and Two World Trade Center, not the entire complex. That could be a separate article, though it may be a bit redundant if there were separate articles about each building. That option also leaves the question of whether or not to have separate articles about each of the two complexes as wholes in addition to the individual buildings' articles. I'll have to leave the exact naming convention to someone else, at the end of the day I'm just a casual enthusiast on the subject, the legal stuff is a bit above my head. Dense-Electric (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it's time for a split. I suggest World Trade Center (1970) for the original complex, and devoting World Trade Center to the current complex (with necessary background, of course). Precedents for this treatment include Yankee Stadium (1923) and Yankee Stadium, and several Madison Square Garden articles. Both the construction of the first complex and the rebuilding were/are long, complicated affairs, so I understand how editors have found the need for separate articles on each building. For a shorter article like 7 World Trade Center, discussing both buildings of that name may be acceptable. There are several examples of that approach in Wikipedia, too. Fitnr (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I also agree that the title World Trade Center should cover the current complex, perhaps World Trade Center (original) or World Trade Center (1973-2001) for the former? Zarcadia (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Good idea, and I agree. I went ahead and made the change. If you can help with rewriting the lead and infobox and otherwise ensuring the respective articles refer to the correct complexes, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Resoru (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
@Resoru: Unfortunately, this change is controversial, as this is a good article that is seen very often (it ranks #1707 in traffic for the whole website, so you can imagine how much controversy this may bring). I have reverted it for now. Epicgenius (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: From this discussion there was a clear consensus for splitting the article; was there controversy previously? Resoru (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Not that I know of, but I think that a Request for Comment is the best way to go at this point; such huge changes may necessitate a Good Article Reassessment, since the new content of this article may not be as GA-worthy. Also, since this article gets around a million hits per year, many people wanting to do research on the original complex will look at this article first. The best way to go right now is reorganization oft he article into sections about the old and new complexes while discussions are ongoing (and maybe a RfC can be set up, but I'm on a mobile device and can't set up an RfC now). Epicgenius (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Changing the status of the World Trade Center

I would like to change the "Destroyed" title to "Rebuilding" or "Under construction" please. 208.100.130.203 (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"Destroyed, replacement under construction", maybe? Pinkbeast (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Not done: Since this is a prominent field in the infobox and an alternative has been suggested, I will hold back on implementing this edit request. Please establish a consensus for this alteration before using {{edit semi-protected}}. Mz7 (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Go on, someone else, comment. It's very hard to get a consensus otherwise. :-) Pinkbeast (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts

I believe that Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts should be inserted into the Rebuilding of the World Trade Center template in the history section. The Performing Arts Center does not link to an article. Robert4565 (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That's the wrong center. Now, the article is created anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Split of article

Recently, the article was split to two articles: World Trade Center (1973-2001) and World Trade Center (2001-present). I reverted the split, but I would like to have more opinions on whether the articles should be split, and whether the article would still be still worthy of GA class afterward. Epicgenius (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I believe that this has been discussed and rejected in the past. I guess we can look at it again, but I'm inclined to disagree with a split at the present time.--JOJ Hutton 02:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree with a split. Referring to both complexes in the same article is confusing to readers. Although it is the same site, they are two different developments consisting of different buildings in different locations. The absurdity of having them in the same article comes into focus when you consider that what replaced the footprint of One and Two World Trade Center was actually the memorial fountains, while what what symbolically replaced the Twin Towers was a new building on a different footprint with entirely different architecture. So it's very difficult to say that it's the "same" complex, other than the fact that it's on the same site. If we really want to talk about the destroyed and the rebuilt complexes as being on the same site, we should title this page "World Trade Center site," so it's clear we're referring to the site and not to the actual buildings in the complex. Resoru (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Disagree, and it's worth referring to the giant discussion just archived by a bot. Unfortunately, while acting in good faith, Resoru seems only to have seen the first short discussion on the talk page. This, although titled "move", is effectively about a move-and-split.
I disagree because the buildings destroyed in 2001 are the notable ones. Many WTCs do not even have their own pages, and the replacement buildings gain notability primarily from being on the site of the destroyed buildings. A split would produce a faintly absurd situation - both with page titling (World Trade Center and World Trade Center (1973) when the old buildings are enormously more notable? World Trade Center and World Trade Center (20xx replacement) where the building that actually exists isn't World Trade Center?) and in page content, where the only interesting stuff on the page for the new buildings would be about the old buildings.
In my view, the page topic is the old, notable buildings (if I were master of the universe, the page would start "The World Trade Centre was", past tense). The new buildings are a piece of incidental information about the site. They may at some point become genuinely interesting in their own right (frex if someone blows them up, too, unfortunate as that would be). Pinkbeast (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Disagree with a split. It is a complex of buildings currently being redeveloped. As for Pinkbeast, 1 WTC is the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere, so the suggestion that the new buildings aren't notable is a bit absurd. --Jleon (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Slightly off the point, but that's only really because all the new tall buildings are in the Eastern Hemisphere - you're picking the group being compared with quite carefully. (And 1 WTC would be some way down the world list if it wasn't for the silly spire criterion). But you'd have to agree, at least, that the new buildings are much less notable, and that their notability stems primarily from being on the site of the old buildings? Pinkbeast (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Both World Trade Centers are notable. They wouldn't have articles if they weren't. (And I always assumed that the World Trade Center site was the article about the new WTC, so I thought that it was split already, but I guess not. It also talks about both WTCs.) Epicgenius (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree with a split. The new complex of buildings has already gained some notoriety, and it's safe to say that it will gain even more as it's completed and opened over the coming years. While it's true that many WTCs don't have their own page, it's also true that this isn't just any WTC - it's THE WTC, and the one replacing the well-known one destroyed in the 2001 attacks. To prevent people from being confused, it's a very simple matter of including something like, "this article is about the complex of buildings currently under construction in Lower Manhattan. For the original complex destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks, see World Trade Center (1973)," at the head of the article. Or if you really prefer, THIS article could be the main one and you could include a similar header and a link to a separate article about the new complex (World Trade Center (2011) ), or something to that effect. Either way, it just seems absurd to me to have one article covering two entirely separate complexes. They're two different complexes, they should have two different articles. It would be incredibly strange in the future when the new complex is completed and has been open for a while to have a picture of a complex that hasn't existed in decades. Whatever is done, SOMETHING needs to change about the opening paragraphs. It's downright weird to have "The World Trade Center IS..." followed by a picture of buildings that virtually every adult in the developed world knows were destroyed. ZarukAcerbus (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I support a split but I think it's more important to split the <N> World Trade Center articles than this parent article. The new complex is at least an in-situ replacement of the old one, but each new building is not in one-to-one correspondence with the old building that happen to share the same number, so yoking each pair into a single article makes no sense. A DAB page or hatnote for each is appropriate. 23:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree with split as per above comments. Kidburla (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • So I take it that there is no consensus? (The 1 and 7 WTC article splits, if ever performed, will be hard to do. They are GA and FA class, respectively. This one is extremely hard since it is being upgraded to FA standards now,) Epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with split The article as it stands now is simply confusing. Looking at the comments above, all the points in favor of the split make sense to me while no cogent argument for retaining the single article has been presented (the new WTC is undoubtedly notable; the 250-some independent references in the One World Trade Center article speak to that). In addition to the points made already, combining the attributes of both old and new buildings in the same infobox is rather cumbersome. The only thing common between the old and new WTC are the location and name, which isn't enough to justify the weirdness that combining the articles entails. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with split. The article is 124,000 Bytes, well above the threshold for splitting... and it's only going to get bigger. Before 9/11 and after 9/11 may describe buildings and events that are arguably out of scope of the other. Before and after are two disctinct epochs in the site's history. – JBarta (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with a split. The site may be the same, but the buildings and project is a totally different thing. It may confuse readers. CookieMonster755 (Talk!) 07:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect title

This article is about one of many WTC's. Why does it then purport to refer only to that in New York? It must be retitled New York World Trade Center [sic].Royalcourtier (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Our guideline on ambiguous article titles indicates that the primary topic for an ambiguous name is the article to which a search for that term should lead. A quick English Google test shows that the WTC in New York is overwhelmingly the primary topic for this term in English. If users reach this page expecting another WTC, there is a hatnote at the very top of the article to help them find it. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Floor area error

Please change the information (in the facts box) about 2nd building floor area from

"Second WTC: 1 WTC: 1,368 ft (417.0 m)" to: "Second WTC: 1 WTC: 3,501,274 sq ft (325,279 m2)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.126.83 (talk • contribs) )

As it was an obvious error I made the change. However, the citation given doesn't give the square feet. Other editors may wish to follow up on this and find a source for the exact number. Or, the IP poster of this edit request might tell where he got the number. – JBarta (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Added a ref. – JBarta (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

video

There is a video on Commons of the lobby and views from the original World Trade center that might be worth including. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 07:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2015

"Developent [sic]"

66.74.176.59 (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I assume the user would like us to fix the typo. The reason we have it misspelled is because the source article has it misspelled. To the user: We put [sic] to designate that we know it's misspelled but that we are quoting it with the misspelling to keep the quotation accurate. Changing the spelling would essentially be lying about what the original source says. Resoru (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

The current 7 WTC does not appear to have an antenna spire, let alone one with a height of "May 23, 2006". 2600:1006:B108:C245:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Likely a copy-paste error from one of the other fields. Not surprising; the fact that there are two entirely different sets of buildings jammed into one article makes the infobox kind of cumbersome. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I also collapsed the infobox. Epic Genius (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Epicgenius: Good idea - that's perhaps the longest infobox I've seen. Can we keep the more general information about the fold, though, and reserve the height info for below the fold? I don't want information on the location or groundbreaking to get lost - the former of which is a vital detail and the latter of which is an important one. Resoru (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Resoru: I am working on whether that is feasible. When I tried to collapse some parameters of the infobox, it did not work. Epic Genius (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 Done I have fixed the infobox. Epic Genius (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Systemic bias

This is an encyclopedia, and systemic bias must be sought to be avoided. The WTC in NYC is one among many in the world, though the most notable. Tang Wenlong (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the page to comply with WP:MOSDAB, which suggests placing the main article, World Trade Center, in the first line. Systemic bias or not, that's easily the most prominent article that could potentially go by this name, and a person typing in World Trade Centre shouldn't be sent on a wild goose chase to find it.--Trystan (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted a change that moved the link to World Trade Center in the list with the others. According to WP:MOSDAB, "Since it is unlikely that this well-known meaning is what they are looking for if they have visited the disambiguation page, it should not be mixed in with the other links. It is recommended to place the link back to the primary topic at the top...". An example is given on that page. I've also edited the entries per the guidline, to make them brief sentence fragments providing only enough information to distinguish the articles, to remove any other links, and to make the full article names apparent.--Trystan (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles to be included

At the moment the dab only links to the World Trade Centers Association (and a movie). Would it not be more useful to link to individual WTCs (per table in World Trade Centers Association), or at least the ones with articles? I'm asking here rather than being bold in case there's something obvious I'm missing. Scolaire (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly help readers. According to WP:MOSDAB we shouldn't include any red links, since the goal of the disambiguation page is distinguish between existing articles. How about like this?
World Trade Center may also refer to:

I don't know whether it would be best to sort them alphabetically by article name, alphabetically by city, or by country then city.--Trystan (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The format is perfect. I see the dilemna about how to sort them. In the end, my instinct is to sort by article name, although it is slightly counter-intuitive in that articles beginning with "World Trade Center" will go last in the list. By country and city, though it makes sense in the table in the WTCA article, looks kind of random in your example above. Scolaire (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I've done it on that basis. See how you think it looks. Scolaire (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox confusion

Is there any reason why we have to point out the construction status of a completely new building on the page for building that were destroyed? The World Trade Center was NOT rebuilt as we knew it. It is now One World Trade Center which already has its own page. The extra details are unneeded and just confusing. Anyone else? Thanks... FriarTuck1981 (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion about this (and other aspects related to splitting up the article) a few sections up on this page. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 Already done Yup, already threw my pennies into that fountain. Thanks! :) FriarTuck1981 (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

WTC 7 Demolished

I saw a video where they were making sure WTC 7 was empty before they demolished it. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqGRv7CQlc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:26FF:3EF0:0:0:0:37 (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

How is it relevant to this article? Of course it would be empty, because everyone would have been evacuated or died already. Epic Genius (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
7 World Trade Center was never "demolished", according to official reports. Please don't add anything related to the 9/11 conspiracy theories to this article. Sincerely Yours, CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I hate it when you guys say: 'Conspiracy theory/theories'. Like it's a bad thing. You believe in a conspiracy theory: The official fairy tale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeriald (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2015

There are deficiencies in the NIST WTC investigation of buildings 1 and 2. Recently NIST published its findings in a peer-reviewed journal. It prompted a response and a discussion [1]. Principally NIST and Purdue University assumed most of the core columns had their insulation removed by the crashing planes. This is a key assumption to their findings and has never been substantiated. It was made because the fire duration NIST used could not cause failure to the more vulnerable and insulated floor trusses. There is evidence to indicate NIST used too low of a fuel load. A higher fuel load would lead to failure of the trusses in both buildings. This would be a spotlight on the truss insulation thickness of the South tower as about 3/4 inch, and the North tower of 1 1/2 inch. Note the South tower fell in about 56 minutes and the North in 102 minutes. With the NIST conclusion: the airplanes did it. With the truss insulation causing the collapses, the design of the buildings was responsible.

[1] Comments on the National Institute of Standards and Technology Investigation of the 2001 World Trade Center Fires Journal of Fire Sciences May 2014 32: 281-291, first published on April 15, 2014 Quintiere (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Quintiere (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done:: you haven't requested an edit, and this is the talk page for a redirect. Did you mean to request a change to one of the WTC articles? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

GA-class rating conflict

This disambiguation page is still listed as "GA-class", although it is no longer an article. Should this be sent to WP:GAR so it can be delisted? Epic Genius (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft split

A split such as one discussed above will be hard to execute. These are drafts in progress for the split:

– Epic Genius (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if there is a consensus. Anyway, I am pinging the participants of the split discussion: @Jojhutton, Resoru, and Pinkbeast: @Jleon, ZarukAcerbus, Kidburla, and Jnestorius: @Orange Suede Sofa, Jbarta, and CookieMonster755: if you want, please comment here and/or make changes to the draft. Epic Genius (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, I propose copying the section World Trade Center site#Buildings into Draft:World Trade Center (2001-present), with a link from the WTC site article. – Epic Genius (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Epicgenius -- Thank you for your work, and starting the drafts. I will contribute if you need me to do so :) --CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me. My instinct was that this is a bad idea, but I'll try and think about it. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I also want to thank Epicgenius for raising this again. My opinion remains that a split increases readability and decreases complexity (an issue I recently encountered when I tried to edit the infobox), and I think the draft articles bear this out. One question is where the redirect for World Trade Center would go; my instinct is that the 1973-2001 article would be the more appropriate one for now. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we should probably discuss where the current "World Trade Center" article would be moved to or redirected to. The current "World Trade Center" title may be redirected/moved to the 1973-2001 article, but we'd have to disambiguate hundreds of links to the 2001-present article. Epic Genius (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambig would be a big undertaking but I'm happy to contribute or do it all. The benefit of changing the disambigs is that it would improve the user experience - the user wouldn't have to read through an article with 50% irrelevant information but would instead land on the page that applies to the WTC version they want to learn about. Resoru (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Epicgenius: Why thank you! Will have to play around with it first and make sure it doesn't break anything before I use it. :) Resoru (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The current state of affairs is that most people probably think 1973-2001 when they hear the term "WTC." It's such a universally recognizable event/building. The balance will inevitably tip as more people are born (more and more people will have been born after 2001). At some point in the future I predict most people will think the shiny new version when they hear WTC. (And most will think of 1WTC and not the entire complex - but that's a separate issue). Who knows when that will happen - the new WTC is still getting in the public consciousness, but it will likely rapidly accelerate as the site is finished up and polished enough for the general public. The observation deck especially will draw more attention to the new building. WTC will likely be a major tourist destination - both to go up and to see (it's hard to miss, after all). All of which is to say, it's really not there yet but it's quite likely. How we make that determination isn't clear - we could go with the preponderance of sources (aggregated throughout history with more weight given to more recent sources) - with Google as the aggregator we use. If only we had funding for public opinion polling. :)
One other strange bit I noticed: We lead with the new one but the main image is the old one. That seems incongruous.
I assume we would actually not have a redirect - the more prominent one would just be "World Trade Center" while the other one would have a year range appended to its title.
The really strange bit when we consider which would be the main redirect target is that this current article (the combined one) refers to the complex as being the new one in the definitional sentence - the first sentence. It says that the World Trade Center "is" the new one. Later - in what amounts to a historical reference rather than a definition - it says the old one "was" the World Trade Center, meaning it no longer "is." (Full disclosure: I wrote the last clause of the first sentence, which explains how old and new relate. Now my old phrasing is coming full circle!)
I suppose we go with the newest version of a thing whenever possible (for example, we show screenshots of the latest version of software). Yet the tilt toward recency seems also to suggest that the new one is the most prominent one - which is true in the sense that it's the only one that physically exists today - but reliable sources (aggregated throughout history) as well as public familiarity would tend to view the old one as the more prominent. I don't know which one is more prominent at this exact moment considering that there are lots of sources and lots of familiarity on both sides. If I had to choose I would pick the new one as the redirect target, because it's likely to be the most prominent one at some point - and because it says something hopeful about rebuilding. I realize that "hopefulness" and "remembering the past" are not Wikipedia policies; I think this article merits special attention and sensitivity. We're all humans and, at least in my case, witnessing 9/11 even secondhand has affected me deeply. I think these special considerations come before technical matters. Resoru (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping. I'm the one who actually carried out the split before it was reverted. Looking at the draft articles, a few thoughts:
  1. I appreciate the effort put into these articles. I might have worked on these articles despite my WikiBreak because they're so important - but at least now I'm aware and can contribute. Please ping me on my user page if you'd like any help with drafting the split articles or handling logistics like disambig, of if you want my input on the proposed split.
  2. Wow, I didn't know we had a draft namespace. Things sure change when you go on WikiBreak!
  3. The split articles have sectioning along the lines of what I've wanted. That is, they are focused sections that deal with specific topics and aren't muddled by conflating two different complexes. 9/11 marked an extraordinarily acute bifurcation - one building was forever destroyed and ceased to exist. That suggests that the older WTC had a unique identity. And indeed, reliable sources have covered each complex extensively. There are whole articles (and many of them) that deal with the old WTC specifically (for example, an article from 1999 would deal exclusively with the old WTC, and an article about the architecture of the original would mostly take the same approach, perhaps with some reference to the new one). Similarly, many articles written these days deal with the new WTC exclusively. For example, I've read some articles in the New York Times about the new building - for example, the person who snuck in, and the initial clients who moved in. I don't remember these mentioning the old buildings. If they did it was a relatively minor portion of the article. Current-day articles may mention the old complex in the narrow sense of their destruction on 9/11 (although this is increasingly rare), but they rarely go into much further detail. In other words, they focus on only one aspect of the old towers, and briefly at that. 9/11, though it ended the existence of the old complex, is a unique topic that already has its own separate article - which makes sense, given the immensity of each topic considered individually. They are related and yet have enough distinct information to merit individual articles.
  4. There's also the matter of keeping page size reasonable - for technical reasons but mostly for the purpose of readability (coherence and focus - no jumping back and forth between old and new). I'll echo what Orange Suede Sofa said: "My opinion remains that a split increases readability and decreases complexity"
  5. I suspect that, as with anything related to 9/11, there are strong and deeply-considered opinions from every angle. This is okay and indeed healthy - it would be weird if people didn't feel something powerful about the event. So let's engage in an empathetic discussion. I myself am conflicted about which approach - combined or split - is the more appropriate approach. On the one hand a combined article speaks to a rebirth - a rebuilding, while separate articles speak to "letting go" of the past (I realize that's a loaded term) and starting anew. The real philosophical question is whether separate articles relegates the old towers to the dust bin of history. That would be a most awful thing to do. It would be disrespectful to forget those who died or whose lives were upended, and it would impede the ability of our readers to assess the entire history openly - without covering up the old complex as if it never existed. It has implications for public opinion and public policy, because people will make decisions based on their knowledge and assessment of what happened. I strongly believe that talking about both complexes without neglecting one or the other is an important goal. Put another way, we have a responsibility to provide a full picture of the situation. Perhaps the disambigs and leads in the respective articles could accomplish this. After all, the leads will need to thoroughly explore one in relation to another - they are inextricably linked. Or maybe it's vital that we discuss them in the same breath, to provide the most thorough account possible. I don't know.
  6. I like the fact that the draft article for the new towers goes into extensive detail on the old towers and 9/11. This is the most important place to talk about what happened and I'd strongly like to keep that in the lead. The primary benefit of splitting the articles is to make the individual sections coherent; the leads should remain essentially identical between the two, since any discussion of one needs to involve the other. If we keep this approach to the leads my opinion would shift more toward split (again, not decided).
I hope people don't forget that there was an old complex and that people died when it was destroyed. Let's think about how we can provide the most informative and fair account possible. Resoru (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I support a split of this piece into two articles. Carrite (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I too support a split of this piece into two articles. I was discussing record tallest buildings with my son, followed a WTC link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_tallest_buildings_in_the_world but it effectively took me to the Freedom Tower - obscuring/relegating Yamasaki's original. Other instances with the same problem are disambiguated e.g. ships - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Howe. The proposed split is coherent from an 'architectural' as well as historical context. And the reference from new back to old is good (appropriate/sensitive), as mentioned above. The disambiguation page can put appropriate emphasis on the importance of the 1973-2001 WTC and 9/11.
  • Support This could be my naïveté talking but it does seem that the new buildings will function just as the old ones did, so one might be tempted to say that there is no need to split this article into two... until you realize both versions of the complex each have their own histories. They also have different visual identities that could (& should) be put in the infobox in the lead. The infobox up there is also cluttered & confusing. A second article on the new complex is the way to go, leaving this one to cover the old complex (which it already does rather exquisitely). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The fact is that while they occupy the same area the twin towers and one world trade are two very different constructions each with their own unique histories that while they intersected on 9/11 both continue with their own stories. By splitting the entries it will keep the page from becoming a convoluted mess. (mind you i am not a regular Wiki editor, just a reader who ended up here looking up some obscure architectural trivia on the twin towers so take that as you will either someone who doesn't know anything about this stuff or as the opion of the target audience) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.78.69 (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I strongly support splitting this article. Both building complexes have their own very distinct architecture and history; only the name and location link them. This situation is very different from a restoration project on a damaged or derelict old building, which would indeed be better served by a single article. Here, none of the original buildings have been rebuilt. The emotional issues can be correctly addressed in a short and carefully crafted lead whose substance should be shared between both articles. Then the bulk of each article should be specific to each complex. Yes, there will be a lot of incoming links to sort but that does not seem insurmountable, especially as most such links would likely point to the historical 1973-2001 WTC complex. In addition, I see very few links where "WTC" means the site where both generations of buildings were built, rather most links refer to either the first or the second generation. From a foreigner's perspective, note that the "World Trade Center" brand has been applied to hundreds of buildings worldwide, with an intent to expand the original New York concept. Kudos to the draft writers for the split articles! — JFG talk 09:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Splitting this article will avoid any confusion, also on what JFG has to say. Lightspeed2012 20:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Disagree with added confusion In a technicality, the buildings known as the "World Trade Center" no longer exist. They were destroyed on 9/11. There is no need to split the articles since the new, single tower is known as One World Trade Center, which already has an article. Anything post-2001 regarding the building or rebuilding should be on the 1 WTC wiki and anything pre-2001 (including the attacks) should stay on this page. That's my opinion, I can't see why there needs to be 3 pages on one building. FriarTuck1981 (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    @FriarTuck1981: Incorrect. The entire World Trade Center complex is due to be rebuilt, three buildings of which are completed and open today (One, Four, and Seven). — MusikAnimal talk 16:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support strongly Addressing the previous comment, the World Trade Center is not just the one building. Buildings 1, 4, and 7 have already been constructed, 3 is under construction, there is a transportation hub, a memorial, and a museum currently at the WTC site (as of June 2015). All of these are completely new, completely different from the previous WTC. Architecturally, it's night and day. Historically, the two sites are completely different. I agree the 1 WTC page might be merged with the new WTC page to avoid confusion, but its time to make the move. This sort of grouping together might have been acceptable while the WTC was under construction. And up until about a year ago, the site was still referred to as "Ground Zero," talking about the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. But since 1WTC was topped out, everyone I know around the lower Manhattan region (myself included) refers to it as The World Trade Center. We've moved past the reconstruction phase, and it's time to acknowledge that. --Laurelpeter122 (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: In light of the above remarks, I suggest that after the split, "World Trade Center" should refer to the current state of affairs, i.e. the newly-built complex, and that information on the historical complex should be titled "World Trade Center (1973-2001)". Hatnotes on each page would point lost readers to the other page, and to the list of other WTCs worldwide. — JFG talk 22:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support split - The only thing linking the two buildings is the name and location. Each has their own long history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Whereas there appears to be an overwhelming consensus on the issue AND two very good drafts have been made available AND this page more than meets the requirement for a split AND enough time has passed between the two World Trade Centers, I say we close the discussion on whether or not we should do the split and START the discussion on HOW to do it. If we reach September 2015 and there still is no split, the page would be entirely outdated. I think we should do the split by the end of this month. Laurelpeter122 (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • That such a split would be appropriate is an answer too obvious to need statement. Amazed am I that it's taken this long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.58.235.100 (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes and no the idea very much makes sense, but won't we want to do the same to the individual WTC building articles as well, for consistency? — MusikAnimal talk 16:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the individual building articles should be split. They have the same confusing problems as this article, e.g.7 World Trade Center's lede mostly deals with the original building, but the infobox has a photo of the new building. Fitnr 14:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • weak support - I support a split, but I don't think those titles are the best. I would lean towards just 'World Trade Center (1973)' and 'World Trade Center (2006)', (7 WTC opened in 2006).' This follows the pattern in other articles that deal with destroyed or demolished buildings, e.g. Yankee Stadium and Yankee Stadium (1923).
Also, after this split there should be an attempt to merge in content from World Trade Center site, which has a lot of overlapping material with this article. Fitnr 14:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I might agree, but I think the proposed article titles should stay the same. After all, people come to wikipedia to learn about this! They might not know the WTC was built in 1973, and the year 2006 kind of seems random. RES2773 (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)RES2773
I agree, but the proposals have years, too! I suppose since World Trade Center will be a disambiguation page, the specific titles don't matter so much. Fitnr 00:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
It needs to be split, because there are TWO World Trade Centers. There's the ORIGINAL with the twin towers, often the WTC's nickname, to the NEW World Trade Center, and freedom tower, its new nickname. I'm for splitting it, and renaming the twin towers "Original World Trade Center" otherwise there's going to be confusion as to which complex you're talking about, the original with the twin towers, or the new one with freedom tower.2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:F088:37CF:DC5F:258E (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support As a frequent reader and reporter of the new World Trade Center complex, I strongly agree with splitting the articles ASAP. The new complex is entirely different from the old one, and the longer we wait to do a split, the more difficult it will be to execute one. The new complex should be completed by 2020 or 2021 (2 WTC to be the final tower), and will begin to accumulate popularity and economic & cultural recognition on an international level. MrVenaCava (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support I think the drafts for both pages are perfectly adequate for immediatel publication (keeping in mind that this is Wikipedia, so they can obviously be changed in the future as necessary). Having the two articles merged was acceptable while the new complex was under construction. But with 1, 4, and 7 complete, 3 finally rising proper, the PATH station nearing completion, and the museum and memorial open to the public (2WTC notwithstanding), I think the new complex has established itself well enough to deserve its own article. ZarukAcerbus (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support Two different structures with completely different cultural meanings. Doing it now.--A21sauce (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:FIXDABLINKS. You just broke 2,500 links in other Wikipedia articles. I hope you plan to fix all of them to point to the appropriate article. (And if an article about a building in lower Manhattan says that it is "200 yards from the World Trade Center", which article should that link to?) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
    • The question of where to link seems fairly easy to answer given context: When discussed current events, point to the current complex. When talking about an event that happened prior to Sept. 11, 2001, the original complex. If it talking about the immediate aftermath of the attacks, World Trade Center site should be linked. —Fitnr 15:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
      • If you are referring to the complex before or during 9/11, you link to the "1973-2001" article. Easy enough. But I don't think Russ's question was answered fully (such as, if someone says, "new redevelopment going on in the World Trade Center site", which article do you link to?). If you are talking about the grounds, I think "site" should be linked. If you are talking about the complex, I think "2001-present" should be linked. Epic Genius (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
        • A building that was built in, say, 1930 would have been 200 yards from the World Trade Center in 1973, in 1999, in 2002, and in 2015. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
          • (And all this time, it was 200 yards from the site...) So, in this case, "World Trade Center site" should be linked, since it was near the WTC site for all these years. Epic Genius (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

PAGE HISTORY

History merge

History merge (part 1)

  • We just can't leave the history of this article at a dab page. The question is, though, for proper GFDL/CC attribution, should this go under the 1973-2001 article, or the 2001-present one? The 2001-present one was clearly shaped and revised through the history of this page too, though. hbdragon88 (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Although there was clear consensus for this, I don't believe that the process was done correctly. But then again, how does one separate the edit history of one article into two separate ones?--JOJ Hutton 16:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, at the top you can see the {{split from}} gives attribution of history after August 10 to the new articles. And on the new articles' talk pages, {{split to}} attributes the history before August 10 to the old article. Epic Genius (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
There are over 5,000 edits; a Steward is required. bd2412 T 00:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

History merge (part 2)

Hi, I'd like to request a histmerge from World Trade Center to World Trade Center (1973–2001). The page contents was split out from World Trade Center to several pages, but the page history of the original World Trade Center article remains at World Trade Center. I'm not exactly sure which revision to histmerge from exactly though.

Also, I noticed that World Trade Center became a dab page and was copy/pasted moved from World Trade Center (disambiguation). This also needs to be histmerged.

Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Trade_Center/Archive_4&oldid=1144184616"