Talk:7 World Trade Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 7 World Trade Center is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 21, 2007.
September 19, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject New York City (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / September 11, 2001 (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the United States portal.
WikiProject Architecture (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skyscrapers (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Fire Service (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 7 World Trade Center is part of WikiProject Fire Service, which collaborates on fire service-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Toolbox

Old Building Page[edit]

I think there should be a separate page for the old WTC 7. This page could be misleading and the fact that it collapsed is only apparent further down the page. WikiImprovment78 (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Why? All the other WTC towers have two (old and new) buildings at one page. Besides, it mentions the fact that the original 7 WTC collapsed, right there, in the lede. Epicgenius (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Why there should be a separate page for the old WTC 7? Because the old and the new WTC 7 are different buildings. At the moment it is so, as if there was only a renovation or conversion of the old building. If the rule is that all buildings at the same place should be described in only one article, than it is ok. But if the rule is that if the old building is destroyed before the next building was built write two separate article then we should split up the article in two articles. And if there is the same problem with the other WTC towers then we should make the same decision there. But maybe it should be discussed at wikidata.org because in some language versions are separate articles for each building and in some versions there is only one article for all buildings. And an other point: If you ask who was the architect of the WTC 7 and you have to enquire which one of the WTC 7 buildings is be meant then there should be separate articles for each building, IMHO.--Fit (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
And for the complexes of buildings which are called World Trade Center there are two separate articles.--Fit (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with both buildings being covered in one article, however, it is kind of hard to defend, given that the buildings are totally different. They share the same name and address, but the new one is completely redesigned and they obviously have very different histories. I notice, for example, that New York's Pennsylvania Stations have two articles (this and this). -Jordgette [talk] 17:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Trade Center 7s collapse[edit]

It seems that the text is implying that World Trade Center tower Seven fell as a result of the damage caused by debris from the other explosions on the same date. I think it is **HIGHLY** important that it be noted that this could not have been the cause of the collapse, and that the true cause was that of a controlled demolition. When a tower collapses from fires burning within, they do not collapse from the top floor first, and they certainly do not collapse evenly. Please do some research on the subject and correct your misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.120.108 (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, please sign your "contribution". Secondly, if you care to check the World Trade Center articles - you will find that the consensus of registered Wikipedia editors is that they have no time for conspiracy theories from unreliable sources. There are plenty of sites on the internet for these "theories" and that is where they should stay. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The IP has apparently never read the NIST report on how the building collapsed.--MONGO 03:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
As it stands, Wiki isn't the end-all be-all source for accurate information anyways, so I'm not surprised the admins consider the sources in the article reliable. Good enough for an introductory rundown of the events, I'm sure readers will be smart enough to know they should look at a variety of sources when researching a topic. 209.31.218.98 (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Note that even the NIST report admits free fall
Please leave your comments on one of the many conspiracy websites on the internet and not here. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Moving to Seven World Trade Center[edit]

Any reason why this hasn't been moved to Seven World Trade Center to match the other World Trade Center articles? I see only brief mention of this in the archives, but if no one objects I will make the move. NuclearWarfare move-protected this article to sysop-only as it is featured, but I suspect that was only as a preventive measure against vandalism (which has happened before). Pinging Epicgenius as I see you are one of the primary contributors. MusikAnimal talk 16:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to override my protection if you establish agreement here. NW (Talk) 17:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal and NuclearWarfare: I think moving this article to "Seven World Trade Center" would be consistent, though I wouldn't mind either way. (Also pinging Aude, another of the major authors, though he's relatively inactive right now.) Epic Genius (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The building's name is 7, not Seven, according to its website [1]. The WTC complex is not consistent in its naming, so WP shouldn't try to impose an artificial consistency. This has come up before on other WTC articles. Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
If you wanted to go off of the front page, they are all numerical except One World Trade Center [2]. We should probably go with that, then, unless you feel there's some sort of WP:COMMONNAME discrepancy. MusikAnimal talk 00:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with the common name in this case – i.e. One, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 WTC. Seven World Trade Center redirects to the 7 World Trade Center article, so it's no big deal anyway. Epic Genius (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree with MusikAnimal. "One World Trade Center" is the exception to the naming, and the rest are all numerical. See: http://www.wtc.com/about/buildings Aude (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

"Underground bombing of the World Trade Centre"[edit]

One of the images in this article has a caption referring to the "Underground bombing of the World Trade Centre". Has a conspiracy theorist snuck this in? 106.69.77.113 (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The image is from 1992, one year before the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. No conspiracy theories at work. Acroterion (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Splitting[edit]

The article should be splitted into two articles, one about the old and and one about the new building.

As it was done in de:Original 7 World Trade Center.

-- 178.6.10.57 (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Changing the URL links to the External links in the main article[edit]

I am proposing changing the external links at the bottom of the 7 World Trade Center article for the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat to this URL. This is all I'm proposing to do. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)