Jump to content

Talk:One World Trade Center/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

1st paragraph is way too wordy

Each sentence is far too wordy in the first paragraph. ObesityTastesGood (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not to "Wordy" CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)CookieMonster755
Any reason for putting the word wordy in quotation marks? And any reason for writing to rather than too or was it just a typo? I agree that the intro is a little too wordy. Parts about when construction started and topped-out don't need to be there (especially now that the building is open). The part about the symbolism of 1776 feet seems fairly pointless as it means nothing to the vast majority of those reading the article (i.e. non-Americans) who will only pay attention to the height of the building in metres which has no symbolism at all.--XANIA - ЗAНИAWikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk 20:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it's a misspelling? Not everyone has perfect English and you can't expect everyone to do so. I have fixed the lede, anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Images for consideration

A friend took this photo of the Freedom Tower. To the left is my cropped version and the original photo, along with the current photo for comparison. I'd like to discuss whether this photo would be a better choice for the main photo or useful elsewhere in the article.

  • Proposed Replacement image
    Proposed Replacement image
  • uncropped original
    uncropped original
  • image currently in article
    image currently in article

--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Yep, that should belong in this article, and did you embedded or uploaded these images? --Allen talk 22:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not quite catching the point of your question. Both the left and the middle image have been uploaded to Commons. I did a crop, but recognize my limited image skills, so wanted to show the uncropped in case someone felt that a different cropping (or none at all) would be a better image. What do you mean by "embedded"?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Embedded image means to embed an image from an external site where you can view an image from another site. I see that your images that you uploaded was a similar job to this article. --Allen talk 23:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

    • I do agree we need an updated image for the article. What about this photo for consideration?CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)CookieMonster755

    Yes, we need an updated image. Sphilbrick, your images have a little too much reflection and camouflage; do you have other photos? – Epicgenius (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    A friend of my daughter took the photo, and I saw it when she visited, so this is a one-off photo. I actually thought the reflection made it a more striking photo, but obviously, opinions vary. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    I personally think it's fine. Stylistically, however, the tower blends in too much with the sky. Epicgenius (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    What is wrong with the current image? --Jleon (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

    September 11 attacks Section

    This section of the article suddenly includes the sentence fragment, "... 55 military personnel were among those killed at the Pentagon.". This information comes out of nowhere because the Pentagon attack is not mentioned anywhere in the article previously or subsequently to this fragment. It also casts doubt on whether the casualty figures quoted include or exclude the Pentagon attack (cursory research suggests includes, though the obvious implication is the numbers exclude the Pentagon attack purely by the article's context). I would have removed the fragment or clarrified, but as this is the featured article today, I decided to raise the matter here and allow someone more knowledgeable as to the casualty figures deal with it. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

    The section seems to be a summary of 9/11 in general and not just what happened in Manhattan. Noticeably missing is any mention of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Perhaps that should be mentioned too. Or perhaps the section should just be about what happened in Manhattan and ignore the rest of the attacks in DC and PA. That is the real question before any discussion on the statistics can take place. Of course the prose should be improved regardless. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    @PointsofNoReturn: — I think the 9/11 section on the One World Trade Center page should be only about the Manhattan attacks, but that's my opinion. CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    @DieSwartzPunkt, PointsofNoReturn, and CookieMonster755: I have removed the offending sentence. Nearly all the victims who died in WTC on 9/11 were civilian, so I kept that. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    You are probably right that the attacks should only include civilian deaths. I am okay with removing the reference to the military deaths. Should the overall 9/11 deathtoll be listed in the section in addition to the toll in Manhattan? That to me seems like a good idea. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Yeah, sure. This should be pretty short, for example "Overall, 3,000 people died in the attacks" (don't know exact number, but it's in the ballpark). Epicgenius (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    That works for me. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
     Done. It was already in the article. I just added links. Epicgenius (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

    Units of measurement

    Personally I would prefer Wikipedia to use only metric units of measurement because it is supposed to be a serious encyclopaedia but I accept that there are still some Americans (and Burmese) who still cling to the imperial system and its weird ways of dealing with height, weight and volume. Some attempt has been made to put the metric units in brackets in this article but there are still gaps. This is supposed to be English Wikipedia not American English Wikipedia. It should be written for the majority of the people and not just Americans. Somebody needs to put in metric equivalents for all measurements and ideally metric should come first with old style units in brackets. Also remember that English Wikipedia is not just read by native English speakers but by people learning English or those who have learnt it as a second language. Stop using confusing units of measurement please.--XANIA - ЗAНИAWikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk 20:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

    @Xania: That has been fixed already. It does universally use both units of measurement. The only corrections that I needed to make were to an imperial measurement for the height, where a metric equivalent was already provided earlier. Epicgenius (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Xania: This is a neutral encyclopedia. It is common practice on Wikipedia for American article to use imperial units and other articles to use metric units. All conversions are used though. What you brought up would probably be better brought up in a global discussion. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    Just a small correction, the US uses US units, not Imperial. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2014

    In the at-a-glance fact list on the righthand side of the page, under "Design and construction", please add "MEP/FP engineer" as "Jaros, Baum & Bolles". Reference: http://www.wtc.com/about/firms JarosBaumBolles (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

     Not done. Your user name betrays that you are violating Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Further, as this is the account's only edit, it is clear that the account has been created for this sole purpose. Please see WP:COI for more information. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    Just to add, writing about projects in which you have a personal involvement is strongly discouraged. Wikipedia should not be considered as a place to promote or advertize your own projects.Read WP:NOTSOAPBOX--Chamith (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree. Though the request was clearly from a single-purpose account created by the firm, I do not think there is an unacceptable COI. The editor only requested that we add JBB as the mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineer for WTC 1. We already have four firms listed; JBB and envelope consultant Israel Berger & Associates LLC are the only ones on that reference that worked on WTC 1.
    I think this is a matter of giving due credit to this firm. If it had been a request to, say, add the exclusive providers of bathroom deodorizers or photocopiers, that might be self-promotion and might be COI. I think we should add JBB and Berger to the designers/engineers part of the info box. Roches (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statue of Liberty & One World Trade Center

    What do you think of this photo? I thought this photo was a good photo, and should be included somewhere in the One World Trade Center article. What do you think, should we add it somewhere to the article? CookieMonster755 (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

    I don't think so. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you for the contribution, but I really don't think the photo is good enough to be placed in any World Trade Center article. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you for your response @David J Johnson:, I totally can understand why, but It does not hurt to ask :) CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    My best wishes, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    I agree with the above comments. This view is way too far to see the WTC. Epic Genius (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

    Suggestion

    Hello, I know I recently posted here, but I had a suggestion. I was thinking somewhere in the article, we could include a night time image of the spire. I think the multicolor scheme really makes the tower unique. What do you think about including a nighttime lite up spire image, or is the article have to much images already? Thank you for your contributions to this article. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

    We've already got a spire photo but a night shot might be better. Do you have one? Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Kendall-K1: -- Here is a photograph of the spire at night on Wikimedia Commons. CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

    There is actually a "logo" field in Template:Infobox building. But I tried it and didn't like how it looked. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

    A-class

    Should this article be promoted to A-class status? It seems like it is good enough to meet A-class criteria as detailed in this table. Epic Genius (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

    Yes, I think it should be promoted to A class Epicgenius. I tried to nominate it as a featured article but it failed to do so. CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    As mentioned in the 2 FA reviews, the article is too active to have a stable, FA-qualified version. Epic Genius (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    It's understandable Epicgenius. CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

    Possible Tenets

    @Epicgenius: 21st Century Fox, News Corp Considering Move to World Trade Center. Maybe it could be mentioned in the article or shall we wait until they have an actually answer? CookieMonster755 (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

    @CookieMonster755: I think we should wait, then put it in the tenants section. Epic Genius (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

    Neomodern??

    Would 1WTC be considered neo-modern? Personally, I wouldn't say it necessarily has a distinct style.... Laurelpeter122 (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

    Semi-Protected Edit Request Regarding Project Management

    Can we add the appropriate project management firms (worked in joint-venture together), Hill International and The Louis Berger Group, added to the side panel? I think the reason that this hasn't been included yet is because many people who do not work in the construction industry realm are not aware that in large project a construction management firm is hired to act as a liaison between the client and the contractor to oversee that the project runs smoothly.

    Can we add a project manager parameter with The Louis Berger Group and Hill International? [1]

    Keelsh01 (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

    Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Conifer (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    Actually, I just re-added it under another parameter, "Other designers". Epic Genius (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you very much! For future references, what're the steps to editing/adding an info box? It does not see nearly as simple as most of the editing that I have done. Also, the firms are not technically designers, they are management consultants is there any way we can change it to something similar?Keelsh01 (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Keelsh01: Please see my talk page for a reply. Epic Genius (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

    References

    1. ^ none (2004-08-16). "Hill International part of WTC project". Philadelphia Business Journal. Retrieved 2015-07-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

    Sound reports

    In 2013-2014 a number of media outlets including Fox News and Daily Mail reported that the tower was emitting odd wind-caused sounds. Should this be mentioned at some point? It was enough to get major media attention (Google "one world trade center sounds" for a selection of media outlet coverage to choose from.) Presumably this has been corrected as I don't see any coverage post-2014 on this anomaly. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

    other uses

    in second line, change "World Trade Center|World Trade Center (disambiguation)" to "World Trade Center (disambiguation)|World Trade Center"

     Done - well, sort of - I've just kept it as World Trade Center because otherwise we would be piping a link to a page that is only a redirect back to the title we were sending down the pipe - Arjayay (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

    Condé Nast

    The tenancy of Condé Nast does not seem notable enough for this information to span three different sections of the article. Is there a good way to clean up and consolidate this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:4025:A200:C23F:D5FF:FE65:EE21 (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

    Old Building Page

    There is a discussion on the WTC 7 talk page on the problem if there should be separate articles to the old and the new building of the WTC 7. But the question if one or two articles are the best approach concerns also this article. Maybe you could stimulate that discussion.--Fit (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

    Needs discussion of design concepts

    Such as basic structure : some sort of tube ? What lessons were learned from 9/11 ? Rcbutcher (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to 5 external links on One World Trade Center. 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 19:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

    Assessment comment

    The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:One World Trade Center/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

    Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
    ==Notes==

    Notes from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/One World Trade Center/archive1:

    File:FreedomTowerEvolution.gif does not conform to Wikipedia's non-free content policy.  Done

    Per MOS:LEAD inline citations are not required for the lead except for exceptionally controversial information. Everything in the lead should be cited in the body, so for legibility's sake these cites should be removed. See also WP:CITEBUNDLE.

    There are MOS:LQ issues, such as building from "Freedom Tower" to "One World Trade Center," stating  Done

    Some measurements are given with metric equivalents, others not.  Done

    In cases such as reported revenues of US$37 million in and tower worth US$500,000 in exchange for the use it's really not necessary to append "US".  Done

    The article needs a copyedit, perhaps at WP:GOCE.  Done

    Just glancing at the structure, there seem to be quite a few short paragraphs, which makes things a bit choppy. This is also evident in the Key Figures section, which includes many subsections of only single paragraphs, and often very short paragraphs at that.  Done

    – Epic Genius (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

    ==Notes 2== Notes from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/One World Trade Center/archive2:

    Overall, the sources used for the article include a lot of press releases, self-published sources, etc. This peculiar website is sourced four times. There just aren't the high-quality reliable sources that the FA criteria require.

    The "Construction" section is a very bland and piecemeal chronology: it gets to a point at which every sentence starts with "On [date]". To meet the "brilliant/engaging prose" criterion of an FA, this section would need to be much more engaging and readable; it would need to be bound together by an overall purpose and direction.

    "In March 2014, the tower was scaled by 16-year-old New Jersey resident Justin Casquejo, who entered the site through a hole in a fence. He was subsequently arrested on trespassing charges and apologized for the disruption, but gave no apology for trespassing." - the source cited does not say anything about apologies. And in the remainder of the paragraph, some of Casquejo's actions are qualified with the allegedly tag, but others are not, for no apparent reason.  Done

    Some of the information about tenants seems out of date. Why do we need to know that Chadbourne and Parke were a prospective tenant in 2012? We are told that by September 2012, around 55 percent of the building's floor space had been leased. But what about now?  Done

    The section "Port Authority construction workers" is not about the construction workers; it is about a film. The entire section is sourced to the film's website.  Done

    Sometimes it is "One World Trade Center", sometimes it is "1 World Trade Center", sometimes it is "1 WTC". In an FA, these would need to be consistent.  Done

    – Epic Genius (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

    Last edited at 01:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 21:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2016

    Without the antenna, it is now the 4th tallest behind 432 Park Ave as well as the others listed. 50.202.184.130 (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

    Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes (Talk) 20:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

    Outdated info

    The text says "If the antenna is included in the building's height, as stated by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), One World Trade Center surpasses the height of Taipei 101 (1,671-foot (509 m)), is the world's tallest all-office building, and the fourth-tallest skyscraper in the world, behind the Burj Khalifa,[29] Abraj Al Bait,[158] and Shanghai Tower.[159]" but the page on tallest buildings in the world now ranks it as sixth-tallest, with a number of 1,900+ foot buildings beating it (most of them don't need an antenna to reach that height either).AnnaGoFast (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to 12 external links on One World Trade Center. 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 05:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to 2 external links on One World Trade Center. 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 00:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

    Is this page ready to be featured?

    I read through this article and it seems to me that it might meet the featured article criteria. As I am not a regular contributor, I am asking here to see if there was something missing. Thanks, Gluons12 talk 15:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC).

    Daniel Libeskind

    Seems like there should at least be a photo of Daniel Libeskind's original design that didn't get built, since he won the design competition. 108.244.74.98 (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

    I agree. There use to be a photo of the design evolution of the tower, but it was removed from the article. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 21:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

    New infobox image

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    The result of this discussion was to Use image 2 for infobox image — usually, someone who started the discussion should not close it, however, it has been several weeks with no comments or feedback, and it is clear that image 2 is best for the infobox, and was previously used as an infobox image.

    Greetings, everyone! I think it's time to officially take a poll on what image we will feature for the infobox. Recently, one of the best images we had for the infobox was removed due to a copyright violation, which is unfortunate. That is why I am starting a discussion poll, to vote and discuss on what image we should use for the infobox. There are several high quality images that we can chose from, which are displayed below. If you believe there are other images that could possibly be used for the infobox that are high quality, feel free to post them here. Again, please vote on which image is best for the infobox and is high quality and important. Cheers, ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 19:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

    Poll

    • Image 1: Current infobox image that I (CookieMonster755) temporarily added. Taken in 2014.
      Image 1: Current infobox image that I (CookieMonster755) temporarily added. Taken in 2014.
    • Image 2: Former infobox image, taken in 2013.
      Image 2: Former infobox image, taken in 2013.
    • Image 3: View of the tower from Ellis Island, taken in 2014.
      Image 3: View of the tower from Ellis Island, taken in 2014.
    • Image 4: The tower at dusk in 2014.
      Image 4: The tower at dusk in 2014.
    • Image 5: The tower in 2015.
      Image 5: The tower in 2015.
    • Image 6: The tower in 2014.
      Image 6: The tower in 2014.
    • Image 7: The tower in 2016.
      Image 7: The tower in 2016.
    • Image 8: The tower in 2015.
      Image 8: The tower in 2015.
    • I think Image 5 is the best one, followed by Image 1, the current one. Nightscream (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I would prefer a pic like Image 7, which shows the height and top - but better and not as blue as the current 7. Regards to all. David J Johnson (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Weighing the merits of each image: All are passable, but Images 1 and 8 blend in too much with the sky; 1 and 5 show other WTC buildings, which is confusing; 3 and 4 seem a little dark; and 7 seems too enhanced. From vantage points, 2, 3, 4, and 7 show the tower from afar; and 1, 5, 6, and 8 show it from the ground. It depends on which vantage points one wants. I prefer #2 if from afar, and #6 if from near. It looks like far pictures are getting consensus, so I prefer #2. Kylo Ren (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I sincerely appreciate your response, Epicgenius. Please note, we are certainly not limited to just these eight photos. I just selected these because the "popped out" as viable options. If anyone here finds a good image they want to discuss/suggest, by all means post it here in the discussion. I do like the angle of Image 7, though it is way too edited and "bluey" to be pictured. If it had a normal tone, than it would be great. The upclose angles are not my favorite personally, but the image we select is not up to my personal liking, but what would be good for Wikipedia. Willis Tower and the Empire State Building do not use upclose images like image 1 and 6, but those are unrelated articles, but it is interesting to note. Cheers, ✉cookiemonster 𝚨755𝛀 02:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    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.

    Architect: Daniel Libeskind?

    I didn't find his name in the the reference ([1]).--fireattack (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

    Height Issues

    The height of 1WTC is the second highest in the western hemisphere, not the first (as stated in the first paragraph). It is the tallest in the US, but the CN tower (Toronto, Canada) is taller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.97.215.117 (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    The CN Tower isn't a building in the sense of having more or less continuous occupied floors from the bottom up, so yes, 1 WTC is the tallest building in the western hemisphere. Acroterion (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 5 external links on One 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:

    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) 03:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 4 external links on One 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:

    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) 04:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 5 external links on One 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:

    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) 07:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

    Also known as

    What is "names are not temporary"? All sorts of names are temporary. Beijing is not also known as Peking, that is a former, temporary name. The name of the building was Freedom Tower until 2009 when it was no longer the building's name - that is the former, temporary name during planning. It should be explicit that it is a former name, regardless of colloquial use. See Salesforce Tower, formerly known as the Transbay Tower, and Salesforce Tower (Indianapolis) (formerly known as Bank One Tower, then Chase Tower, and originally conceived as American Fletcher Tower). I like either of these wordings; a note that looks like a normal citation no one sees is insufficient. Reywas92Talk 21:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2017

    The completion date of the One World Trade Center was July 2014, not 2013. 184.89.144.35 (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

    Not done: The structure was completed in 2013. It was opened in 2014. This is indicated in the infobox. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified one external link on One 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:

    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) 23:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 5 external links on One 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:

    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, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2017

    I am a student at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and I am currently enrolled in a writing class. As a final project, I was to revise 3 pages of a Wiki article to improve clarity and readability. I chose the article on One World Trade Center, and would like to publish my revisions.

    Thanks,

    James Werosta Jrwerosta (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    As the template above notes, you should make a specific request. Since this article is semi-protected, if you're doing general copyediting, it might be better to choose a topic that isn't under some form of protection. There are several million other articles that are free to be edited by anyone, many of them needing copyediting. Acroterion (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    Confused about current name

    Would someone more knowledgeable be able to denote more clearly that the current One World Trade Center succeeds the name of its predecessor, the One World Trade Center. As a foreigner, I did not even realise that the original North Tower had another name. I believe this minor edit would help clarify things a little more.

    Cheers, Heliatrope Fish (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC) p.s. first time requesting protected edit, I feel like I'm using the template wrong somehow? :S

     Already done You needn't worry, you're using it perfectly the right way. As to your request, the name similarity is addressed in the lead section, which states in the third sentence "The supertall structure has the same name as the North Tower of the original World Trade Center, which was destroyed in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001." .spintendo  19:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2018

    CHANGE "However, some leases had failed." to "However, some leases failed."

    ADD the following paragraph to the bottom of 2.7 - Owners and Tenants:

    In August 2014, it was announced Servcorp signed a 15-year lease for 34,775 square feet, taking the entire 85th floor[1]. Servcorp would later sub-lease its space on the 85th floor of the tower, providing access to the 85th floor to a wide range of growing, medium-sized businesses—among them ThinkCode[2], D100 Radio[3], and Chérie L'Atelier des Fleurs[4]. Meshalevitz (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

     Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
    Just a note that I just reworded it to remove promotional material, and add sources to Servcorp subletting its entire space. epicgenius (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

    References

    1. ^ Weiss, Lois (August 25, 2014). "Servcorp books a floor at 1 WTC". New York Post.
    2. ^ "ThinkCode".
    3. ^ "D100 Radio".
    4. ^ "Chérie L'Atelier des Fleurs".

    Alignment of an image

    MOS:IMAGELOCATION says "if an exception to the general rule is warranted" but I see no exception. An exception would include an infobox in the way and not "too many images on the right" according to one editor, which I don't see anyway; there are only 2 nearby to it on the right. IWI (chat) 20:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

    People view the site on multiple different resolutions. Using a right alignment on the image on my resolution (2156x1440) pushes the image below the Current building (2014–present) header. Taking out other images in an option in my eyes, my stuffing everything on the right is not. Nihlus 20:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    I agree. The existence of multiple images does push the images on the right downwards on my screen (1024 x 768 px). Some of the images are placed on the left in order to stagger the images. Is there a specific objection to placing the image on the left? MOS is a guideline and not a policy, which means that MOS could be overridden at any time if following it isn't helpful to the article. epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    That’s all I needed, an explaination. IWI (chat) 09:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I do agree that some of the images are unnecessary and captions are fairly obvious. IMO, removing these unnecessary images and captions is better than worrying over the alignment of images. epicgenius (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

    Adjustment to Previous Edit - Clarification Servcorp and Tenants

    The previous edit went under the assumption that all of the 85th floor was sublet as virtual offices. This is inaccurate. References are cited regarding the nature of the tenants on the 85th floor.

    CHANGE: "Servcorp subsequently sublet all of its space as virtual office space to numerous medium-sized businesses such as ThinkCode, D100 Radio, and Chérie L'Atelier des Fleurs."

    TO: "Servcorp subsequently sublet all of its space on the 85th floor as private offices, boardrooms and co-working space to numerous medium-sized businesses such as ThinkCode, D100 Radio, and Chérie L'Atelier des Fleurs.[1][2] Meshalevitz (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

     Done. Also on a personal note, I think this wording is much better than the previous version. epicgenius (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

    References

    1. ^ SCHRAM, LAUREN (August 26, 2014). "Servcorp Takes 35K SF at 1 WTC". Commercial Observer.
    2. ^ CLARKE, KATHERINE (February 26, 2015). "SNEAK PEEK: You can have an office at One World Trade Center for $750 a month". NY Daily News.

    A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

    The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

    Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

    Content added by 67.184.212.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been removed from this article for copyright reasons. In spite of warning, the individual using this IP has persisted in copying content from copyrighted sources without compatible licensing to Wikipedia. Please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source, whether the one cited or another (issues have been detected from other sources than those named). Based on the editing pattern of this person, we cannot make the assumption that the content is usable. You are welcome to use sourced facts that may have been removed to create new content in your own words or to incorporate brief quotations of copyrighted material in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/67.184.212.160. Thank you. --💵Money💵emoji💵💸 15:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


    Design lawsuit section

    I added the following content to the page:

    ======Design lawsuit======

    Two years before the September 11 attacks, in 1999, a Georgia-based architect named Jeehoon Park drafted his thesis at the Illinois Institute of Technology for a skyscraper design. The rough sketch of his high-rise draft, looks eerily similar to One World Trade Center's current architectural appearance.[1] Park revealed in a lawsuit that he was a graduate student at the architectural school in the late 1990s, when his thesis dubbed "Cityfront ‘99" was reviewed by his advisor, Ahmad Abdelrazaq, an associate at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, along with Bill Baker, a second senior partner at the firm. Additionally, Park alleges that his thesis advisor had access to his design to utilize for future development. Park is suing SOM, the Durst Organization, the Port Authority, and Tishman Construction; alleging the firms ripped off his blueprints.[2] Currently, the judge in the case, Richard Sullivan, dismissed many of the claims, but is allowing three copyright infringements on the designs to move forward in litigation.[3]

    Later, the material was reverted and taken off. This is notable subject matter that's properly sourced with a number of reputable references. Additionally, if you google the architect's name, "Jeehoon Park", a number of articles pop up as well, from other sources such as Politico, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Reuters, the Chicago Tribune etc. This is clearly notable and relevant fact based information that belongs in the article. Currently, a judge has allowed a few points of contention to go ahead in further litigation. Whether or not the case succeeds, there's isn't an appropriate reason why it cannot be included in the article. Thoughts anyone? Duranged (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

    Well, it's a relatively notable lawsuit that's been in the media for sometime now. And its not a lawsuit based on financing issues, or construction problems that don't make the evening news. This is a lawsuit based on an architectural design, which makes it stand out. I don't believe all these journalistic media outlets would be reporting about this lawsuit if it involved a pay dispute with a contractor involved in the building's plumbing. Also, it's a small paragraph. It fits neatly in the article. It's not like it's so big, that it would require a redirect to another page with an abundant amount of additional content. It's a small addition to the article, but important nevertheless. Duranged (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

    References

    1. ^ Beltran, Lizeth (October 14, 2019). "Architect's lawsuit over One World Trade Center design to proceed". CrainsNewYork.com. Retrieved October 14, 2019.
    2. ^ Plitt, Amy (October 14, 2019). "Architect's lawsuit alleging One WTC copyright infringement moves forward—barely". NY.Curbed.com. Retrieved October 14, 2019.
    3. ^ Pereira, Sydney (October 14, 2019). "Lawsuit Over One WTC Design Barely Survives: Report". Patch.com. Retrieved October 14, 2019.

    Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

    The top floor of one wtc is 401 meters not 386 meters. 84.210.134.65 (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

     Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

    List as the sixth-tallest building in the world

    Summary of Changes

    The building is listed as the seventh-tallest building in the world. However, according to the list of tallest buildings in the world, it is the sixth-tallest (at 541.3 meters). The order of tallest buildings is: Burj Khalifa (#1), Shanghai Tower (#2), Abraj Al Bait (#3), Ping An Finance Centre (#4), Lotte World Tower (#5), One World Trade Center (#6).

    Suggested Change

    Change: and the seventh-tallest in the world.

    To: and the sixth-tallest in the world.

    This line is in the first paragraph at the end of the second sentence. Rylan12 (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

     Done It looks like an unfinished building was added to the list of tallest buildings article demoting One WTC, and that was updated to this article as well. Implemented. Dylsss (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2021

    Addition of Daniel libeskind in the names of architects of the building 223.226.182.107 (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

     Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. He is already mentioned several times in the article. Please clarify what change you are suggesting. RudolfRed (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

    Floor numbers

    There are a lot of floor count discrepancies in this article. Where do these extra floors that bring it up to 104 come from? Which floors are skipped? Which floors are inflated? If all the floors were numbered sequentially from 1, what would be the top? Do some floors overlap? I call this floor inflation (bringing a high floor back down to earth). In contrast, floor deflation would be bringing low floors to the sky. And what floor should be use as 1? The highest floor that can be considered the ground? The lowest? A basement? Subscribe to me (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

    I agree. The article says "One World Trade Center's top floor is officially designated as floor 104, despite the fact that the tower only contains 94 actual stories." OK, but why?
    This is not unlike saying "the top speed of a Tesla is officially designated as 170 MPH, even though it actually can't go any faster than 155 MPH." There has to be an explanation for the discrepancy, which should be in the article, since the article calls attention to the discrepancy in the first place.
    74.95.43.253 (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2021

    The caption below the image in the Infobox does not use American English spelling. "Center" is not spelled as "Centre" in American English. 100.1.76.9 (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

     Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

    Semi protected edit request

    In the infobox, under Website, please put in the official website.192.231.40.122 (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC) https://www.onewtc.com/

     Done - FlightTime (open channel) 17:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

    Maybe not GA?

    In the lead it states that the towers name was revealed with 3 sources and yet that information is not told in the rest of the article, making it impossible to conform to WP:CITELEAD. Furthermore, the criticism section even has a tag saying that it might break the neutrality of the article. The article also seems to look quite cluttered with a few centered images and it seems quite long, especially with the original WTC. Other than that it seems like a pretty solid article, but those problems I think should knock the article down. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 19:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

    This is one of my older Good Articles, so it may fall a bit short of modern criteria. But the issues you mention are quite minor. I don't really see how the criticism is non-neutral, so I removed the tag just now. The centered images can easily be fixed per MOS:IMAGELAYOUT, so that isn't a problem. Finally, as for WP:CITELEAD, that says: The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. (On a side note, I find the comment about "knocking the article down" a bit distasteful, given what this subject is about, but I'm going to assume that this is bad phrasing rather than an actual bad-faith comment.) – Epicgenius (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

    Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Lower Manhattan from Governors Island August 2017 panorama.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 11, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-09-11. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 15:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

    One World Trade Center

    One World Trade Center, seen here amongst the skyline of Lower Manhattan, is the main building of the rebuilt World Trade Center complex in New York City. It is the tallest building in the United States, the tallest in the Western Hemisphere, and the seventh-tallest in the world. The supertall structure has the same name as the North Tower of the original World Trade Center, which was destroyed in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

    Photograph credit: King of Hearts

    Recently featured:

    Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2022

    Change the Wunderkind links from a link to the idea of a wunderkind, IE an intelligent child, to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wunderkind_(fashion), which is the actual company that owns floors on the one world trade center.

    Its unclear what kind of moron would think to link to the concept rather than the company. 104.173.76.75 (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

     Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nythar (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

    Why the whole WTC history? Wrong article.

    The content of this article reads more like a whole history of the World Trade Center, which has its own article right there. This article, on the other hand, is only about the "One World Trade Center" tower, and not the predium or franchise in general. As such, all the details and minutia from 5 decades before the tower itself existed, the terror attacks, etc. are irrelevant. The tower didn't exist, or was even planned, or proposed, at that moment in time. The photos of the previous towers, their construction, their interiors, etc. are explicitely confusing since they aren't part of the current one. I heavily propose removing all this content and beggining the timeline with the planning of the construction of *this* building (including any *necessary* references to the previous ones in "third person" style there, and not as if they were the matter of the current article, since they already have their own articles). The WTC article should handle the content of the WTC in general. --181.26.40.109 (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

    First, your content above should be placed at the bottom of editors views on this page in date order - as per Wikipedia conventions. Secondly, I cannot agree with your sentiments, as it is necessary to state the history of the site and the reason the present tower is there to give a complete picture. David J Johnson (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
    @David J Johnson, Actually, I've been thinking this as well. The Twin Towers do not have their own article as of now, which is a defect I think has existed since the beginning of Wikipedia. When I improved this to Good Article status over seven years ago, I thought including everything about the North Tower of the old WTC would provide sufficient context. However, I now believe the current 1 WTC page should describe the current building since, after all, that is the topic of much of the page. The page needs a little restructuring at the very least, as we have a strange situation in which "history", "architecture", "incidents", and "tenants" are all level-3 subsections. Other pages like Chrysler Building and One Vanderbilt treat these as their own level-2 sections - but then again, neither of these replaced a prominent building that was violently felled.
    I do think we should consider creating a new article about the Twin Towers, then condensing the info about the old tower that's currently on this page. Everything in this section is currently also in World Trade Center (1973–2001) and Construction of the World Trade Center, so I think they can be trimmed without any negative impacts until an article about the Twin Towers is created. Afterward, the context of the old tower could be combined under a level-2 "history" section. I'll put it up for discussion before making such a major edit. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
    I agree this article should be split. Just because they share a name and location doesn't mean they're the same building. Everybody who goes to this article wants to know about one building or the other, not both at once. You should start a !vote on the issue, or I can if you're busy.—Chowbok ☠ 11:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Chowbok, sorry, I did not see this earlier. Yeah, a !vote on this subject would be fine. This might also affect the featured-article status of the 7 WTC article - I think that should also be split, as well as the other articles that discuss both new and old towers at WTC. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

    Trimming of content about previous 1 WTC

    As per my comment from 10 months ago, I have now trimmed much of the content about the original 1 WTC. I did not remove the entire section - in my opinion, there is still enough context about the original complex. But the main purpose of this edit was to make "history", "architecture", "incidents", and "tenants" into level-2 subsections, similar to in other articles about NYC skyscrapers. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2022

    Add year to the date the observatory tickets first went on sale. Change "Tickets went on sale starting on April 8" to "Tickets went on sale starting on April 8, 2015". GWeinstein (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

    Done. --Mvqr (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

    Floor Count Controversy

    This article goes overly hard to push the notion that this building is 'only' 94 stories, not 104 stories, yet the very citation used says "104". Either come up with evidence and an explanation or this article should revert to 104.Ryoung122 02:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    I think there are 94 physical stories, with the top story being numbered 104. It's similar to the situation at other high-rises like the Central Park Tower, whose 98th and highest story is numbered 136. I'll have to do some digging on this, because some sources say 1 WTC actually only has 85 stories if we're not counting mechanical floors or double-height spaces. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

    Vandalism on the map

    what is "New Daşsak" on the map ? probably vandalism ! Please someone correct it .. I don't know, how ! 77.102.73.170 (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

    I checked OpenStreetMap and the vandalism isn't there anymore. I think the map in this article failed to update. 205.213.208.210 (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

    Freedom Tower is the former name?

    Don't various people and some sources still call it like this to this day? It's supposed to be the nickname but it used to be the former official name 120.28.224.231 (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2024

    as an addition to the line that says it is the tallest building in the western hemisphere, add that it is also the second highest freestanding structure of any kind in the western hemisphere, second only to the cn tower in toronto, canada 76.132.30.242 (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

     Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

    Actual height is 1792 feet.

    Using the “counting the spire as part of the building” the height is 1792 feet.

    There is (currently) nothing in the article (or in the link at [5]) to explain why the “tip” is 1792, but the cited height is 1776.

    Note: The link at [5] says Height is measured from the level of the lowest, significant, open-air, pedestrian entrance to the highest point of the building…

    … irrespective of material or function of the highest element (i.e., including antennae, flagpoles, signage and other functional-technical equipment).

    Explanation at thetowerinfo.com
    In the original design there’s a spire installed atop the roof, but was replaced by a bare antenna in 2012, confusingly CTBUH still maintains the height of 1776 feet for the tower even after the spire had been replaced by the plain antenna, which always doesn’t count in architectural height. The number 1776 of the height in feet represents the year of 1776 when United States Declaration of Independence was signed, in fact the total height of the tower is 546m or 1792 feet as there’s a little skinny component of the antenna beyond the point of 541m, as shown at [[2]]

    MBG02 (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

    The height of the windowless base is actually 186ft (56.7m). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.193.221 (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:One_World_Trade_Center/Archive_3&oldid=1247479254"