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)

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)

I think there are 94 physical stories, with the top story being numbered 104. It's similar to the situation at other high-rises like the Central Park Tower, whose 98th and highest story is numbered 136. I'll have to do some digging on this, because some sources say 1 WTC actually only has 85 stories if we're not counting mechanical floors or double-height spaces. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Actual height is 1792 feet.

Using the “counting the spire as part of the building” the height is 1792 feet.

There is (currently) nothing in the article (or in the link at [5]) to explain why the “tip” is 1792, but the cited height is 1776.

Note: The link at [5] says Height is measured from the level of the lowest, significant, open-air, pedestrian entrance to the highest point of the building…

… irrespective of material or function of the highest element (i.e., including antennae, flagpoles, signage and other functional-technical equipment).

Explanation at thetowerinfo.com

In the original design there’s a spire installed atop the roof, but was replaced by a bare antenna in 2012, confusingly CTBUH still maintains the height of 1776 feet for the tower even after the spire had been replaced by the plain antenna, which always doesn’t count in architectural height. The number 1776 of the height in feet represents the year of 1776 when United States Declaration of Independence was signed, in fact the total height of the tower is 546m or 1792 feet as there’s a little skinny component of the antenna beyond the point of 541m, as shown at [[1]]

MBG02 (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism on the map

what is "New Daşsak" on the map ? probably vandalism ! Please someone correct it .. I don't know, how ! 77.102.73.170 (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)