Talk:3 World Trade Center

contradiction

it says here it is the third behind one two and four in height. Wouldn't that make it fourth? is it fourth or is it only behind one and two?

Floors

The number of floores is 80 and not 71 !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.114.154 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

File:3WTCupdated.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:3WTCupdated.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 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. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Rename

Per the WTC site [[1]], only One World Trade Center is spelled out. 7 World Trade Center correctly uses the numeral, and I've boldly moved 2 World Trade Center to the numeral. Since this article has a more substantial history, I'm raising the issue here rather than making a bold move. Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be okay with this (and 4 as well). AlexiusHoratius 02:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the page name needs to be changed to the numeral "Three" because that is what the official website refers it to as 3 World Trade Center. I would recommend a name change for Three World Trade Center including Two World Trade Center, Four World Trade Center and Five World Trade Center. They should all be named with the numeral number. Cookie Monster (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Done GrahamHardy (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Old building/Demerge

I think it's best if we put the description about the old building in the page for the former WTC site. H-Man (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the section on the old building should either be on the page for the former WTC, or, perhaps more usefully, on its own page. The original hotel and the new office building have almost no connection. They are of different design, different function, and are at completely different locations. The only connection they have is their name. jamesluckard 09:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree and was bewildered that these pages were merged without discussion or stated reason a few years back. The building should be notable in and of itself, not simply the address, as jamesluckard seems to be suggesting. While the content in the section here is substantively unchanged, the infobox was deleted during the move. Perhaps I will have to unblank that page. Techhead7890 (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, otherwise we would un-merge all of the other towers' articles as well. And we can' easily transfer the infobox. epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that back in, and good point, I don't work on these pages so I didn't know. To avoid the large horizontal clear I've reordered the sections, so hopefully that doesn't clash too much with the style of the other addresses/towers. Techhead7890 (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I actually undid that (sorry), because although your revision was aesthetically sound, it was confusing to have older history at the bottom. epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Contradicting myself here - I have basically reduced the hotel's history in this page to a summary, and I support the split of the two articles. The hotel was on the opposite end of the WTC site, so it isn't even related to the current skyscraper, apart from the name (I don't want to say "address" because the current 3 WTC's address is 175 Greenwich, whereas the hotel's address was somewhere on West Street). This article should really be about the new skyscraper. I don't know why I ever thought merging the two articles were a good idea, but here we are. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Height Measurement

The height of Three World Trade Center should primarily be in Standard Measurements not Metric! This building is located in New York, not London! Please mark Metric in Brackets and Standard in no brackets! CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)CookieMonster755

Heh, well if it follows the source, fair enough! Done today. Techhead7890 (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Marriot WTC under construction?

@David J Johnson: Why did you revert the IP's reversion of the "Destroyed" status for the Marriot WTC's infobox to "Under construction"? As I am to understand it, the new building may or may not be a hotel like the old one, but either way, the original is gone forever. As far as I am aware, no plans to restore any of the former elements of the old WTC as they once existed are underway. Or has something come up to suggest this? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, the article is about the new construction. Read the heading and lead, it concerns the new build and mentions the destruction of the former building. The article is not about "Marriot", in any case the spelling is "Marriott". David J Johnson (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I know that, but the infobox I'm referring to is for the Marriott section whose Status is now listed as "Under construction". To put it another way: This page has two infoboxes, each referring to separate buildings, both of whose Statuses read "Under construction" but one of which refers to a building that is no longer there. This is the infobox in the section that would have been split off into another article about the Marriott World Trade Center. It seems the IP undid vandalism but was then reverted - not just by anyone, but by someone who has a massive established edit history and apparent good standing within the Wikipedia community. I therefore assumed there must have been a good reason for doing so, but now I'm not sure we're even on the same page. Spelling error duly noted, you don't have to tell me that as per a technicality the article is not about "Marriot" anything. That's unnecessary. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You are, of course, correct. There are two info boxes and in my haste I missed that. My apologies. However, there is no excuse on your part for incorrect spelling. David J Johnson (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

No offense taken, I own the misspelling but I took issue with how it was pointed out to me. It wasn't that big a deal. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 17:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 3 World Trade Center. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wtc.com/about/office-tower-3/office-tower-3-schedule
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140706181613/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/deal-reached-finish-3-world-trade-center-tower to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/deal-reached-finish-3-world-trade-center-tower
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110128025607/http://www.wtc.com/media/videos/World%20Trade%20Center%20Tower%203%20Design%20Update to http://www.wtc.com/media/videos/World%20Trade%20Center%20Tower%203%20Design%20Update
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121126063510/http://www.sept11marriottsurvivors.org/ to http://www.sept11marriottsurvivors.org/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nabe-web.com/am2001/stories.htm

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) 20:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

3 World Trade Center needs a new picture of their building

The current image of 3 World Trade Center is stil the picture from a year later still being constructed. I i went to Wikimedia Commons and couldn’t find any pictures. And I don’t want to risk copying from searching the web. So can someone just get a new picture or tell me how to post a picture from the web. HorsesARENice^{Ride me to my talk page} 14:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC) HorsesARENice^{Ride me to my talk page} 14:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@David J Johnson, Emmmacron51, Seth Whales, and HorsesAreNice: Looking for thoughts regarding two image options for the infobox. User:Lawrence 979 prefers the former, which shows the building from immediately below it, while I prefer the latter, which shows the building in its entirety, unobstructed by trees and corrected for perspective. The latter format is in line with how skyscrapers are usually photographed. Filetime (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. Prefer the latter, which shows the building in its entirety. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Lawrence 979's preference

User:Filetime's preferences

I can actually agree that the picture that shows the whole building has a better view, but i think the cropped nature of the picture doesn't fit with other articles (including 4WTC which i also reverted). I would recommend that a new photo with a similar type of view to 4 world trade center should be found somewhere on the internet and uploaded to wikipedia commons to be used. Leave it as the slightly obstructed one for the time being — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence 979 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• @David J Johnson and Lawrence 979: I added another option for a straightened image. I'm not particularly attached to either image per se but I do believe strongly that a view from immediately below is inappropriate. I'd also challenge the view that there is a normative standard that the images should "fit" as User:Lawrence 979 has posited. If both of 3 and 4 WTC use the cropped versions of the same images, don't they "fit"? How does a view from immediately below the building, partially obstructed by tress in any way "fit" with the images in One World Trade Center, 8 Spruce Street, 56 Leonard Street, or 7 World Trade Center? Filetime (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand fully the arguments, but my preference is File:World Trade Center January 2019 (edited).jpg, until a better image is created. Another option is File:Three World Trade Centre (April 2019).jpg, however I still prefer File:World Trade Center January 2019 (edited).jpg. SethWhales ^talk 07:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I am alright with the one chosen. While I am personally not the biggest fan of cropped photos, I think the amount that is cropped in this particular one is better than the previous one inserted. The other seemed (to me at least) to be slightly squished, which I am happy got removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence 979 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)