Wikipedia

Talk:World Trade Center (2001–present)

(Redirected from Talk:World Trade Center (2001-present))
Latest comment: 10 months ago by RMCD bot in topic Move discussion in progress
Learn more about this page

Typo in article name

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There is a typo in the article name. It uses a hyphen but it should use a dash: World Trade Center (2001–present). See WP:MOSDASH. This also makes it inconsistent with World Trade Center (1973–2001), which uses a dash. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I made the request an hour ago. It was   Already done by Philg88. Epic Genius (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
You guys are fast! Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sometimes.    Philg88 ♦talk 16:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 28 external links on World Trade Center (2001–present). 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 21:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

6 WTC?!

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So, has anyone else noticed that they have a 7 WTC, but no 6 WTC? At least, not listed in the article.

Is there a specific reason for not including a 6 WTC in the rebuilding plans? This should be mentioned in the article.

--98.122.20.56 (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Article maintenance: Sorting in the table of the new WTC site

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I've made several changes to World Trade Center (2001–present)#Structures table here and here, which fixed sorting in the table.

Primer for future date maintenance

edit

...Because the Structures table has been transcluded into other articles.

Sortable headers with dates now contain data-sort-type="isoDate", given that all cells with dates are already prepended with data-sort-value parameters. Replacing "date" with "isoDate" made sorting functional (in Firefox).

All cells with data-sort-value parametres must use the full ISO date, such as:

data-sort-value="2016-01-01"

In my experience with this table, leaving even one cell with only a year, or a year and a month (without a day) into data-sort-value made the column unsortable.

As isoDate is set as the data-sort-type in row headers, then date cells should avoid data-sort-value="NA" or anything else that is not an ISO date, as textual data misplaces the row relative to other rows.

Some date values are moving targets:

  • For items to be completed this year, use the current date.
  • For items that have a projected non-current year of completion, use January 1st of that year:
data-sort-value="2017-01-01"
Past that date, rely on news outlets to learn when a project is to be complete, and change the values accordingly.
  • For future items with an unknown year of construction or completion, use 1 January 2100, which will position the row below all others:
data-sort-value="2100-01-01"
These are all N/A or TBA/TBD items, which can variably use templates that affect cell formatting. To avoid code issues, place data-sort-value="2100-01-01" before {{N/a|TBA}} code, as in this example:
data-sort-value="2100-01-01" {{N/a|TBA}}
That's because the pipe | is not used in wikicode, as its corresponding page code is already in the {{N/a}} template.

-Mardus /talk 01:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Date maintenance update

edit

Formatting update: In date cells with data-sort-value="2011-01-01", do not use {{N/a}}, TBA/TBD, or like templates, because they override the data-sort-value parameter; when sorting in ascending order from top to bottom, the 5 World Trade Center row with the {{N/a}} tag in the "Date completed" cell is placed to top of the table, when it should be at the bottom. For this reason, I've created a similar-looking manual style for that particular cell with an added in-code comment asking not to use the {{N/a}} template. -Mardus /talk 15:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Message to David j johnson

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Call it 9/11 Sausagea1000 (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

No, the correct link is as I corrected the note. Please stop edit warring. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on World Trade Center (2001–present). 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) 09:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Non-free content in table

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed that there were a couple of images in the "Construction" section table were non-free and should be removed per WP:NFTABLE: File:2 WTC HeroShot Image by BIG.jpg and File:WTC 5.jpg. I would've done it myself but my wiki-expertise isn't strong here and need help (apologies to @David J Johnson: for not providing more explanation). Thanks. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

But both images have been released by the copyright holder(s). David J Johnson (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
I'm confused - are they both not copyrighted images? They've been released to the press, but I don't see any evidence that they're int he public domain. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Simple. Read the release wording on the image page, they have been released to Wikipedia. Case closed. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
I'm rereading the image description and nowhere does it say that the images are "released to Wikipedia". For the 2WTC image, the description reads:
Released by the developer to promote his/her product. This image is a promotional image from Silverstein Properties.
For the 5WTC image, the description reads:
Released by the architect to promote his/her product.
Neither description states that the images are released specifically to Wikipedia and/or released from copyright. And if they're actually released in the way that you describe, they'd have OTRS tickets. This doesn't appear to be the case.
Obviously, the images are "released" in the general sense - why would an architect create a rendering of a building and not release it to the public? That doesn't mean they're not copyrighted images. As long as they're licensed as non-free images, WP:NFTABLE still applies. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on World Trade Center (2001–present). 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) 09:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Natural title

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I know we had a discussion a while ago, which resulted in the Old and New World Trade Center being split, but what would you think about having more natural titles for the articles? CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 01:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Move?

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Although construction began in 2002, the story began in 2001, and the consensus is that should be reflected in the title. (closed by page mover) Bradv 02:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

World Trade Center (2001–present) → World Trade Center (2002–present) – The first building (WTC 7) in the new complex did not start construction until 2002. PhilrocMy contribs 20:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose The dates are not about when the WTC complex was open, even after the attacks it existed albeit in a destroyed state. It didn't pop out of existence until 2002.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose – the title does not reflect when the World Trade Center started construction. The title reflects the World Trade Center site after the September 11 attacks. I would support a more natural title (WP:NATURAL) if one could be decided on. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 00:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose - The story of the subject of this page has a very clear and definite beginning in 2001 Fitnr 04:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Support – The article subject is defined as a partially completed complex of buildings in Lower Manhattan (emphasis mine); it is not the World Trade Center site. Therefore, it is appropriate to use 2002 as the start date, when construction of 7 World Trade Center began, because there was no "partially completed complex of buildings" before that. @Philroc: you may want to amend your RfC rationale from "WTC 7 did not open until 2002" to "Construction of WTC 7 did not start until 2002". — JFG talk 09:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose - The article includes in its scope late 2001, specifically the cleanup and planning processes. 79.65.126.84 (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose - I see no logical reasoning for merging the articles together. David J Johnson (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Table width upates

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In World Trade Center (2001–present)#Structures, I've removed paddings from cells containing images, thereby reducing overall table width a little bit. Using the Firefox web inspector (in Windows xp), I got the following table widths for optimal viewing —

In the desktop version, the table is viewable at these minimum viewport widths:

  • 802px with the Monobook skin
  • 859px with the Vector skin.

As the Monobook skin is non-default, it can be selected in user preferences, and applies only when logged in. With it, the desktop version of the table is thus viewable at 800x600px screen resolutions, or with displays that have the same pixel width.

In the mobile version, the minimum viewport width must be:

  • 717 pixels with the Minerva skin.

This should acommodate mobile screens that have the minimum width or height that exceeds this pixel width.

The upside with the mobile site is, that tables can be scrolled, or, rather, swiped from right to left, so I assume a working overflow rule.

As it is, the default mobile skin is called Minerva. I don't know, if there are any other mobile Wikipedia skins than that. -Mardus /talk 09:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 24 February 2018

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: The requesting user has withdrawn the request 23h112e (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

(Note: the original close was formatted incorrectly. I have fixed it. epicgenius (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC))Reply


World Trade Center (2001–present) → World Trade Center (United States) – the current title includes a defining reference to an act of terrorism. The article is about a building and the offices contained within the building, has actually very little relevance to terrorism, other than an historical reason for existence. The building is a stand-alone structure, not needing to reference historically a second subject. The current description is biased and United-States centric because List of World Trade Centers - 23h112e (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's never, ever been called the "United States World Trade Center." WP:COMMONNAME applies. Acroterion (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
is a matter of opinion and preference, and is the actual reason I gave for renaming, being the user is defining the building from a terrorist act, additionally, "is now the iconic and historically important" - the user didn't provide evidence for this claim "iconic, historically important". There are numerous other buildings "iconic and historically important" in the discipline of architecture. 23h112e (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
for example https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/iconic - "very famous or popular, especially being considered to represent particular opinions or a particular time" - the application of "iconic" to the new building is not actually true, the previous building was the actual iconic building, in the sense of "very famous -especially being considered to represent particular opinions or a particular time". Photographs of the new building don't represent anything iconic. 23h112e (talkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Trade_Center_(2001%E2%80%93present)&action=edit&section=14#) 21:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi. The "iconic" buildings I mentioned, which would be considered primary, are the former two towers World Trade Center which were destroyed in 2001, so we are in agreement. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
for example https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/iconic - "of, relating to, or having the characteristics of an icon, widely recognized" - "an icon" - "a very famous person or thing considered as representing a set of beliefs or a way of life" - the building isn't actually famous, the event and the previous building were famous, new generations don't know anything about the building. "representing a set of beliefs or a way of life" - is a biased United States-centric view not representative of, for example, English-speaking England. 23h112e (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi, almost an edit conflict there, so you may have missed the post above yours. We are still in agreement. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Here's a list why: epicgenius (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
    1. The premise for this entire RM is false. The nominator said that the current title includes a defining reference to an act of terrorism. The article is about a building and the offices contained within the building, has actually very little relevance to terrorism, other than an historical reason for existence. No, it is a building complex. And the entire reason why this complex exists is because of the 9/11 attacks. Of course the act of terrorism is going to be mentioned here, because if 9/11 didn't happen, this complex wouldn't exist.
    2. The former WTC was also in the U.S. and there were also dozens of current world trade centers in the U.S. (See WP:PRECISE)
    3. This doesn't make things any clearer, compared to if the disambiguator was "New York City". Generally we disambiguate to as precise as possible, and we can do that here. (See WP:PRECISE again)
    4. As per Acroterion's above reasoning, no one has ever called this the "United States World Trade Center". (See WP:COMMONNAME)
    5. The current titles were decided on in the article splitting discussion from 2015. (See Talk:World Trade Center)
    6. The 1973-2001 article should not be moved, either. It's currently a GA nominee and needs to be stable, and the current title is suitable.
    7. This is just a solution looking for a problem. I suggest that someone uninvolved close this nomination as soon as possible. Obviously, if a renaming discussion is to be held, it needs to be discussed in a much more open format, such as an RFC. epicgenius (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose – the former Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were also located in the United States. The current title set-up is suitable. The proposed title does not comply with title guidelines. CookieMonster755✉ 00:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

The requesting user has withdrawn the request 23h112e (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago21 comments10 people in discussion
This is the second page move request made for this article which is without any support from other editors and therefore is subject to WP:SNOWBALL close. The requesting editor has repeated this process 2 times in sequence, both times without support from other editors. If there is a third page move request here, participating editors may consider submitting this matter of repeat unsupported page move requests to ANI, with added note that the submitting editor was blocked as a sockpuppet in October 2017. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

The 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.

The request is because:

23h112e (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

It was the ITM Building before it became the NO WTC in the 1980s, following the trend established by the WTC in New York. How is the WTC in New York not the most important? Again, I see no pressing issue that this proposal constructively addresses to make the topic more clear to the encyclopedia user. Acroterion (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Still confusing with World Trade Center (1973–2001). While there may be other World Trade Centers, the one in NYC is the most notable. Normally that would be a reason to support (and I would have done so if this page were still at the title World Trade Center). However, the former WTC and the current WTC can themselves be confused, and the article on the former WTC receives far more views than the current WTC's article. Both WTCs are much more notable than any other WTC, as this link shows. If you wanted to rename anything to "World Trade Center (New York)" or something similar, it should be the 1973-2001 article that is renamed. But don't do it now, because that article is currently undergoing a Good Article review and a requested move would be disruptive. epicgenius (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
"NYC is the most notable" - but how this is justification for this particular center be The center or a center, without mentioning New York. The organisation doesn't distinguish their own trade center in New York as being the center for all the organisation, it isn't possible anyone else could describe, their organisation, whether any individual would prefer one description against another - the association haven't organised their organisation to show The World Trade Center or World Trade Center, but for some reason users here feel they know it is the center (not a center). http://wtccentralpa.org/what-is-a-world-trade-center/ shows the World Trade centers Association - "The World Trade Centers Association, headquartered in New York City, is the umbrella organization for over 330 World Trade Centers in more than 100 countries" within this association, New York has a world trade center within the city. "the former WTC and the current WTC can themselves be confused" is no reason what-so-ever as both might just have the years included in the title (as they are now) plus the addition as I'm suggesting.23h112e (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
please see also - World Trade Center, New York. I think the fact of the World Trade center being named as such, is firstly, because it is the second center, and the most famous due to New York, and people didn't know about New Orleans, or the other centers - but the name is a misnomer - "Misnomer" does not mean "misunderstanding" or "popular misconception",[1] and many misnomers remain in legitimate use (that is, being a misnomer does not always make a name incorrect). https://clickamericana.com/media/newspapers/the-new-twin-towers-of-the-world-trade-center-open-1973. https://www.wtc.com/ does show this description, but this doesn't necessarily indicate the article might be titled in the same way, at least because , is a misnomer. 23h112e (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
"the former WTC and the current WTC can themselves be confused" is no reason what-so-ever is irrelevant to my argument. What I actually said is the article on the former WTC receives far more views than the current WTC's article, so it is the other article that should be moved, if push comes to shove.
Your other points don't make sense, but I'll go with them anyway. Just because the WTCA is headquartered somewhere doesn't mean that "World Trade Center" should be the title of the headquarters' article. We call things by their common names, regardless of whether it's technically a misnomer.
And what is wrong with having just the years in the title? Don't presume that readers can't tell between "the World Trade Center" that has been in existence before 2001, and the WTC afterward. This is a world-famous icon; ask anyone where the "World Trade Center" is, and half the time, it'll be the one in NYC. I don't know what you mean by but how this is justification for this particular center be The center, but this is the most popular World Trade Center out there. OK, second-most-popular, but WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Don't make a name longer and more confusing because you think a few people may be confused. epicgenius (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Is not a possible reason: World Trade Center, New York (1973–2001), World Trade Center, New York (2001 - present) 23h112e (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Those proposed titles fail WP:PRECISE since the inclusion of "New York" is unnecessary. Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above 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.

Infobox image caption

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
The caption text in dispute: On the left is Brookfield Place, which is not part of the World Trade Center complex.

@CapLiber: What's wrong with including Brookfield Place in the caption? I'd think that including the caption would clarify that Brookfield Place isn't in WTC especially for readers who aren't from the NYC area. By contrast, excluding Brookfield Place might insinuate that Brookfield Place is part of WTC, or at the very least, make readers confused about what it is. epicgenius (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Image change

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The main image on this page as of October 10, 2021 has three issues with it. 1. 4 WTC and 5 WTC (site) are not visible in the picture. 2. 3 WTC was not complete when this picture was taken (in 2016). It was completed in 2018. 3. This is based on issue 1. It is inconsistent with World Trade Center (1973-2001) because the image over there has all 7 building partially visible. To fix these issues, there should be an updated picture from late 2018 - 2021 which partially shows all 4 completed buildings and 2 building sites. I don’t know all the copyright stuff, so can somebody else do it for me? Vamsi20 (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 27 November 2021

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 20:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply


World Trade Center (2001–present) → World Trade Center (2006–present) – Requesting Move from (2001–present) to (2006–present) as 2006 was when the first building officialy opened 7 World Trade Center. Aaron106 (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

False consistency that doesn't serve readers. A lot happened at the WTC from 2001 to 2006, and is described in the article. This follows a series of disruptive, undiscussed moves to three different titles. Acroterion (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
It is not false consistencey, the building was 'under Construction'. The first building officialy opened in 2006. This is why you see buildings on Wikipedia use the opening date rather than the construction or groundbreaking date in their title. --Aaron106 (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Rather few of them were spectacularly destroyed and then rebuilt - this is an unusual case. Please respect the subject and the reader. Acroterion (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
In 2001 the building site was a complete wreck. There was no 'World Trade Center'. Construction only began in 2002 --Aaron106 (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
I don't think 2006-present is a good title. The fact that buildings typically use the opening date isn't really comparable here. Like Acroterion said, this is a fairly unique case since the previous complex was suddenly destroyed. Given that, the complex did not only start in 2006 when the first building was completed. The relevant dates of the complex also include the planning and construction; the planning began as soon as 9/11 happened, presumably, even though work didn't actually start until months afterward.
For a similar reason, a previous move request for this page in 2017 failed.
– Epicgenius (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
The original World Trade Center work and planning began in the 1960s, The complex only officialy opened in 1973. That's why if you visit World Trade Center (1973–2001) you can see they use that year in the title. And not 1968 as the construction date, or 1966 as the groundbreaking date. --Aaron106 (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yes, we know. Epicgenius has addressed those issues, as have I. This is a unique case. Acroterion (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
I am acting in good faith, I didn't know about the 'requested move' feature before --Aaron106 (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
So does other building page article include the events starting in the years before. It's not a valid point. --Aaron106 (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose: This article is not just about the building itself but also contains significant information about the background and construction. Therefore, as the article contains a significant amount of information starting in 2001, the current name should remain. --Spekkios (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above 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.

Request

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the first sentence of the article, the World Trade Center is described as being located "in the Lower Manhattan neighborhood of New York City, U.S." This is incorrect. "Lower Manhattan" is not a neighborhood, but is a vast swath of Manhattan south of 14th Street. There are many neighborhoods in Lower Manhattan, including the Financial District, the home of the World Trade Center.

In the article "World Trade Center (1973–2001)", a better phrase is used, and describes the location as "in the Financial District of Lower Manhattan, New York City, United States." This writing is much more accurate. Could we have that same wording used in this article? Deliciousnachos987654 (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion in progress

edit
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:World Trade Center (1973–2001) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Trade_Center_(2001–present)&oldid=1208609465"