Talk:2 World Trade Center
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2 World Trade Center article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Stopped wording article as if building has been cancelled!
editNote to editors, this building has not been cancelled and is only indefinitely postponed. Please stop revising article as if it has been cancelled! Any more attempts to do this will be undone! Please see the wording methods for the Three World Trade Center article, this is probably the best way to word this article since both building are in a similar situation completion-wise. Thank You. Stormchaser89 (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2012 (US Central)
Mural Project
editShould there be a section for the Mural Project? It was commissioned by Silverstein Properties and it might be the only thing at the site for the foreseeable future. 108.14.43.254 (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Split proposal 16 February 2024
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 | It has been suggested that this page should be split into a new page titled 2 World Trade Center (1971-2001). (discuss) |
It is high time we opened a split proposal for this article into a separate one solely for the original South Tower. There is plenty of history and architectural merit that would warrant a separate article, the same as what was done for 7 World Trade Center (1987-2001), split from it's successor, the modern-day 7 World Trade Center. Similarly, the list of tenants would simply be transferred over to the article on the original South Tower. Previous consensus was in favor of a split as the 2 iterations of 7 WTC were independently notable. Excited to hear thoughts and suggestions. I have suggested the same be done for the North Tower. — That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support in principle, though I think we might be able to write a combined article on the original Twin Towers. If we do decide to split out each Twin Tower as separate articles, we should move List of tenants in 2 World Trade Center to 2 World Trade Center (1971–2001) instead, then split out the content. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support per nom and same reasoning given on split proposal on One World Trade Center.
- MountainDew20 (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support as per the comparative One World Trade Center and List of tenants in 1 World Trade Center (1971–2001) articles (not necessarily supporting the historic article to be a list, just supporting a split). My reasoning is that I have a couple of terrorism incident lists on my watchlist and it has become apparent to me that the 9/11 incidents point to the new tower rather than the historic tower. TarnishedPathtalk 10:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support makes sense...this would make it easier for the reader to differentiate between the two articles. SethWhales talk 06:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)