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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Skyscrapers Mid‑importance

	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.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

New York City Mid‑importance

	New York City portal 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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!

Note 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

Should 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)[reply]

Split proposal 16 February 2024

CONSENSUS FOR

There is consensus for splitting the page. Each tower is independently notable and separate articles will aid reader navigation/understanding. There is precedent for a split along these lines on a similar article at Talk:7 World Trade Center. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2024 (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.

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 Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Strong support per nom and same reasoning given on split proposal on One World Trade Center.

MountainDew20 (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. TarnishedPath^talk 10:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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.