Talk:One World Trade Center

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)

Maybe not GA?

In the lead it states that the towers name was revealed with 3 sources and yet that information is not told in the rest of the article, making it impossible to conform to WP:CITELEAD. Furthermore, the criticism section even has a tag saying that it might break the neutrality of the article. The article also seems to look quite cluttered with a few centered images and it seems quite long, especially with the original WTC. Other than that it seems like a pretty solid article, but those problems I think should knock the article down. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 19:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This is one of my older Good Articles, so it may fall a bit short of modern criteria. But the issues you mention are quite minor. I don't really see how the criticism is non-neutral, so I removed the tag just now. The centered images can easily be fixed per MOS:IMAGELAYOUT, so that isn't a problem. Finally, as for WP:CITELEAD, that says: The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. (On a side note, I find the comment about "knocking the article down" a bit distasteful, given what this subject is about, but I'm going to assume that this is bad phrasing rather than an actual bad-faith comment.) – Epicgenius (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Lower Manhattan from Governors Island August 2017 panorama.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 11, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-09-11. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

One World Trade Center, seen here amongst the skyline of Lower Manhattan, is the main building of the rebuilt World Trade Center complex in New York City. It is the tallest building in the United States, the tallest in the Western Hemisphere, and the seventh-tallest in the world. The supertall structure has the same name as the North Tower of the original World Trade Center, which was destroyed in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Photograph credit: King of Hearts

Recently featured:

• Multiplane camera
• Theloderma corticale
• Daniele Hypólito

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2022

Change the Wunderkind links from a link to the idea of a wunderkind, IE an intelligent child, to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wunderkind_(fashion), which is the actual company that owns floors on the one world trade center.

Its unclear what kind of moron would think to link to the concept rather than the company. 104.173.76.75 (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nythar (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2022

Add year to the date the observatory tickets first went on sale. Change "Tickets went on sale starting on April 8" to "Tickets went on sale starting on April 8, 2015". GWeinstein (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Mvqr (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Floor Count Controversy

This article goes overly hard to push the notion that this building is 'only' 94 stories, not 104 stories, yet the very citation used says "104". Either come up with evidence and an explanation or this article should revert to 104.Ryoung122 02:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)