Jump to content

Talk:List of World Trade Centers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page title

[edit]

Should this article be moved to List of World Trade Centers? It seems like because of the fact that World Trade Center is generally a proper noun that that may be a good idea. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, do you mean just to capitalize the letters? Because when i created the page, i too was in doubt whether to capitalize or not... :-) Rehman (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I know general policy is lower case, except when dealing with proper nouns... but are we or are we not dealing with proper nouns here? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...I think not, because normally the titles are capitalized when the subject is like "World Trade Center Bahrain", so since this is more like just a sentence, rather than a name, i think we aren't dealing with a proper noun... Have a good day. Rehman (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London World Trade Centre

[edit]

I think we should add the London WTC to the destroyed list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_%28London%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.38.2 (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the article is correct, the building damaged by the bomb is part of the South Quay Plaza complex (and may be called South Quay Plaza 1, although I'm not sure). The "World Trade Centre" name applies to the new development proposed for the site, but I cannot find any sources claiming this is the name for the damaged building. —Snigbrook 01:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the 1996 Docklands bombing article, the [[World Trade Centre (London) article needs to be rewritten about either the damaged building or the proposed new building, if either of them are notable enough. —Snigbrook 01:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York

[edit]

The World Trade Center in Manhattan was not all destroyed, only about 4 out of the around 8 buildings were. The Twin Towers were just part of a complex that made up the World Trade Center. If listed as destroyed it gives the wrong impression, people still work there. 24.182.142.254 (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a WTC prominent?

[edit]

The name of the article is "List of world trade centers", but the actual list itself is labeled as a list of "prominent" wtc's. When I added the Capital Region WTC it was removed because the name of it ended up being a redlink. Well, most of the others are redlinks as well, and those that have an article are almost all stubs with little info. I could easily make an article on the CRWTC that is longer than most and then say "well it's not a redlink anymore". What makes one more prominent than another? From the pictures it seems criteria is a tall building in which you have your offices. Of the few in the list that have floor counts listed the CRWTC has more floors than 6 and is taller than 2 more that have more floors for a total count of being taller than 8 of the others. I dont know what a shiny office building has to do with prominence but thats the impression I get. There are roughly 279 WTC's, I'm all for putting in them all, but if someone thinks that's too many, then please give criteria and if any that I wish to put in the list do not match it then I will remove them.Camelbinky (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Camelbinky,
Firstly, it is against the basic rules of Wikipedia itself to remove information. If you havent noticed, this article was once a part of another article, in which these redlinks already existed. What we are trying to do is to reduce the amount of redlinks as much as possible. Please read the basics before you revert anyones edits. And as for "i can create a stub article better than the others", well do it, that is what Wikipedia is all about, someone starts a small article and the other expands it. And just keep in mind, that removing the square-brackets and turning the redlink to text is just as bad as a redlink itself; this is a list, and all lists in Wikipedia should have a link to its subject, again basic rules. And as for the part in which you changed the line "There are 279 WTC's in approximately 75 countries", you cant say approximately to countries, because countries are countable, its basic english. Please do excuse me if my words are harsh, i normally dont type like this, i did it because i am totally against reverting edits without reference. If you are new to Wikipedia, reverting edits is a nasty and offensive way to start... Have a good day. Rehman (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If reverting edits is a nasty and offensive way to start why did you revert my edits? I am the one who originally put the word approximately in the sentence and I am the one who put 279 WTC's and 75 countries. You changed it and in doing so messed up the very English you are saying is "basic English", you left out the word "in" so it said "279 WTC's 75 countries", which makes no sense. Approximately IS correct English and "countries" are not definitely defined and, hence, not inherently countable. Check articles on list of sovereign states, micronation, and related articles to see the debates and various interpretations of "country", "state", and "nation". The reason I put "approximately" is that the WTCA itself uses that word in its website!!!!! They dont even know how many countries have WTC's because they don't know how to clasify all as countries or not. As example- if there was a WTC in Kosovo, do you count that as a country because it has declared de facto independence or do you not count it as a country because internationally it is recognized as de jure part of Serbia? Perhaps you should have started this discussion FIRST before messing with both of my first edits as I started this discussion at the instance of reverting your edits on my edits. At least I started a dialogue and gave my reasons here instead of being like you and just reverting. I stand by my inclusion of the CRWTC and hope to reinstate it as soon as this is resolved. As for being "new", no I am not but thanks for insulting me and thinking I am, I have started whole articles, and I have contributed to dozens upon dozens. I'm not great and I don't know every single wikipedia rule, but I do know that sometimes people get more interested in wikipedia rules than in actually making articles truthful and the best they can be.Camelbinky (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up- I have just read wikipedia:lists. "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group" (emphasis added) No where did I see anything that could be interpreted as saying redlinks should be removed or not put in to lists and by the way- I have never read anything that says wikipedians should not "remove information" as you stated, in fact wikipedia policy tends to be that if any information is false or NPOV it SHOULD be removed immediately or at least discussed to a consensus. The "wikipedia:lists" page even states that it is helpful for lists to have redlinks so that contributors can see what pages need to be created. I believe I have now cited enough reasons to justify my inclusion of "approximately" and of the CRWTC. I have reverted back to having the word "in" and "approximately" into the lead paragraph, but will hold off on my inclusion in the table of the CRWTC until I see a consensus on here and specifically your response. If I have misinterpreted wikipedia:lists, please let me know.Camelbinky (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Camelbinky,
I sincerely apologize if my words turned out to be an insult to you, in my entire history as a Wikipedian i never got angry with anyone, nor has anyone got angry with me. I also apoligize for calling you new, i understand you are a Genuine Wikipedian since 2007 (18th July 2007, to be more accurate). In this article, i have only two main points; firstly, to reduce the amount of redlinks, which can be solved by creating a stub articles (...for this reason, i have added the redlink again). And the second point (which i havent mentioned) is that, its more convenient if all items in the list are in the same entry format (which we dont have any problem with). I do accept you have a point in the "...approximately..." part, so i apologize for that too. I suggest we end this argument (if i may say) in good faith. Have a good day. Rehman (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize as well, I overreacted to being called new. I know you were trying to protect this article from getting out of hand and I thank you for being honest, kind, and willing to have a dialogue. I hope we can work together on articles sometime. Camelbinky (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:) Thank you for understanding. Have a good day. Rehman (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bahrain WTC day.JPG Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Bahrain WTC day.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Massive addition

[edit]

Currently, an editor is attempting to expand this list by over 21,000 characters. I'm opening this thread for discussion of this addition, and would request that this massive addition be discussed here before being readded. Thanks, LHM 20:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the list is quite outdated, which is why the edit is so massive. I have about 10 pages of new WTCs (or older ones, that for some reason or another aren't included on this list), and a number of them have their own Wikipedia pages, and would probably like to be linked through this list. I have all the current data on WTCs from the 2011 WTCA Member Directory. Thebestpearl (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here is my recommended course of action:
  1. Divide the list into 8 or 10 nearly equal "pieces."
  2. Add each "piece" in one at a time, over the course of a couple of days, making certain not to remove any other entries, and that each entry you make is properly-sourced and properly formatted into the current charts.
  3. After each placement, leave a short note here about what you did.
Doing this will make it easier for other editors to evaluate the work you are doing, and will make certain that the expansion is done with proper formatting, and with no loss of current entries as well. Best regards, LHM 21:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestion. I think I have it in the correct order, and I'll divide it up and start posting soon. What would you consider a proper source? I have the 2011 Membership Directory and the list is also on the WTCA website - what do you think? Thebestpearl (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again - do I have to cite each one though? I see many on the current list have no references. Some WTCs don't have websites so I could link back to the WTCA main webpage that lists their name, or can I just leave it empty like the original author of the article did for many of these? Thebestpearl (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of entries

[edit]

Any particular reason why WTC Wharf (Melbourne, Australia) was removed in revision 440320799, or was it an accident? Surely it belongs in at least one of the lists. Also what’s the story with World Trade Center (Macau) (revision 440332013)?

Maybe it’s better if the lists were merged and the WTCA, destruction, and/or former name statuses was summarised in a “Status” column. That may also address the concern in #New York of parts of the World Trade Center (New York) not being destroyed. I wonder if it would be better to list them by country rather than by status; possibly a bit like List of metro systems#List.

BTW if you’re looking at adding entries to the list you might like to keep Category:World Trade Centers up to date as well.

Vadmium (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


WTC Wharf was removed because it no longer exists, and World Trade Center Macau can be considered either part of Greater China or its own, so I wanted to look into that further. And about the Categories, that's a good suggestion. How would I do that? I'm new to Wikipedia so any help with that would be much appreciated! Thebestpearl (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wharf should go under formerly named WTCs? Thebestpearl (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I added WTC Wharf under the formerly-named list. For the categories, you can only add existing pages (not red links) to categories. You edit the page you want to add, and add a category link at the bottom, for instance my edit to Wenzhou World Trade Center. You can optionally add an extra bit to stop them all being sorted under W, like in my World Trade Centre (Mumbai) edit. But I went through all the articles in the list and added them to the category so you probably don’t have to worry about it now, unless we uncover some more articles. Vadmium (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I restored the removed sections. I don't see what "WCTA wishes" have to do with that. Anyways Wikipedia is an independent website not associated with the WCTA. The buildings in the removed sections were WTC's or will be. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 15:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wtc uio.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Wtc uio.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Wtc uio.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of World Trade Centers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on List of World Trade Centers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of World Trade Centers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of World Trade Centers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 75 external links on List of World Trade Centers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intro Paragraph

[edit]

The current intro paragraph reads like a 3rd party sort of intro. Any thoughts on if we should rewrite it? Heliozoan (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why is the canary islands separated from the rest of spain?

[edit]

It just don't make sense, they are part of spain

why are listed as a separate country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.73.32.5 (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_World_Trade_Centers&oldid=1208488112"