Talk:2 World Trade Center

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 Guyping 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]
MountainDew20 (talk) 22:08, 17 February 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.

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.