Talk:7 World Trade Center

About splitting the articles into two

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.

---

Should we have separate articles for the original 7 World Trade Center and the new one? I ask because this article, despite its inbox being the new 7 WTC, has more of a focus on the original building. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion I don't know what other people think, but my personal opinion is that we should at least consider it. However, the fact that it's a featured article means we really should get consensus for a split before trying to split it ourselves. I'm not sure whether the two resulting articles would be up to FA standards; there's a lot of info about both of them, but such a major change may mean a featured article review is needed. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I have to agree; we need a consensus first, and a feature article review would help get a better consensus on this. My opinion now remains the same as it did in September, having this articles split in two makes the most logical sense IMO, the other World Trade Center buildings are split in two, to separate the destroyed buildings from the rebuilt ones (e.g. One World Trade Center/Freedom Tower being the one post-9/11 and List of tenants of One World Trade Center being the one pre-9/11). We also have two pages for each respective World Trade Center complex as well. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree, should be separated. Each of the buildings are different and deserve their own articles and their own unique infoboxes. i guess this is already the split page of the original WTC 7 - List_of_tenants_in_7_World_Trade_Center_(1987–2001) , it has an infobox and description about the building itself. YitzhakNat (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I just removed a {{split}} tag from the List of tenants in 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) article. It seems that, rather than splitting the "tenants" article, we should move that page to 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001), then relocate the info from this page into the 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) article. The only reason I have not done this yet is that this is a featured article (albeit an old one), so any major edit requires much more consensus compared to most articles.

Incidentally, there is a similar issue with 4 World Trade Center. This building also has a predecessor structure, but the old building, old building's tenants, and new building are all described in one article. Honestly, the WTC pages have suffered from this problem for two decades; the combination of old and new buildings into one article makes it really hard to focus on either structure. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support split. Both buildings are independently notable. 162 etc. (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Support split as well--independently notable and separate buildings. DecafPotato (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support split per nom

FlameAlpha (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support split, the article has enough history and notability to warrant a seperate article — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimensionalFusion (talk • contribs) 15:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If this is being kept as one article, the lead should be crystal clear that both buildings are described in the article. Keep in mind that the info box shows the specifics for the present building only. I find it more logical to have two articles, with each referring to the other with the About template up top. That is how the main buildings are handled. - - Prairieplant (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I honestly support splitting the two, both buildings are notable and deserve their own articles Flixxy0 (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support split per Epicgenius. greyzxq ^talk 20:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Given that consensus seems to be leaning toward a split, I'll let this conversation run for a few more weeks while I figure out how this article's FA status is going to be addressed. More likely, both articles will have to be demoted and then gradually work their way back up to FA.

  The drafts are at Draft:7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) and Draft:7 World Trade Center. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support split. The WTC from 2001 had a depression article- this one should too.

SussyBakaSussyImposter (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion

Of course there should be two articles, because of how notable the original wtc 7 was in terms of both historical context (9/11 history) and scientific context (a very unusual and unexpected structural collapse which sheds new light onto the science of building safety) 2604:B000:A218:41A:E6DB:1650:9459:8D54 (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2023 (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.

WP:URFA/2020

@Aude: This old featured article appears to be in fairly good shape since its 2007 promotion. As part of the unreviewed featured article sweeps, I did notice a few things. From most to least important:

• I notice that there's been discussion above of splitting the article (including by myself). If that happens, the page may no longer be stable and thus fail WP:FACR #1e; however, there's been no other input thus far on a split, so I'd consider the page to be relatively stable.
• Have there been any notable events since 2011?
• This source, Cuozzo, Steve (September 19, 2011). "7 World Trade Center fully leased". New York Post., is deprecated per WP:NYPOST. Is there a good reason to retain it?
• The sentence Building Seven was not included in the original World Trade Center master plan by Daniel Libeskind, but was designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill under the leadership of David Childs, who largely redesigned One World Trade Center. is unsourced. (This is the only unsourced claim in the entire article, which is why this point is lower on the list.)
• The building is being promoted as the safest skyscraper in the U.S. - The article doesn't mention by whom this claim is being made. Is it still promoted as such?
• There are several sentences for which wording can be improved. Examples:
  • The lobby of 7 World Trade Center held three murals by artist Al Held: The Third Circle, Pan North XII, and Vorces VII - "Held" may be seen as slightly unencyclopedic.
  • The office tower has a narrower footprint at ground level than did its predecessor, so the course of Greenwich Street could be restored to reunite TriBeCa and the Financial District. The original building, on the other hand, had bordered West Broadway on the east, necessitating the destruction of Greenwich Street between Barclay Street and the northern border of the World Trade Center superblock. - It may be worth combining these sentences to make it more clear that the old 7 WTC required Greenwich Street to be destroyed, but the new 7 WTC restored the right-of-way of the street.
• The word "floor" (e.g. Floor 44, floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30) should be capitalized, or lowercased, consistently.
• Some images are staggered, resulting in minor instances of MOS:SANDWICH, e.g. File:Abcnews-wtc7damage.jpg is aligned to the right between two left-aligned images.
• Some links are in close proximity to each other, such as Otis destination elevators; it may be worth spacing the links out so they can be distinguished from each other, per MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
• There are a couple violations of MOS:REPEATLINK, e.g. Larry Silverstein, Salomon Brothers

Overall, this old featured article doesn't look bad considering its age, but it may need a little work before it can be marked satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Update six months later:

• Have there been any notable events since 2011? - I have taken the liberty (no pun intended) of adding events since 2011. The article now contains additional info about post-2011 history, including a recent refinancing.
• The sentence Building Seven was not included in the original World Trade Center master plan by Daniel Libeskind, but was designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill under the leadership of David Childs, who largely redesigned One World Trade Center. is unsourced. - The sentence is removed.
• Actually, I was wrong, the New York Post is merely unreliable, not deprecated. However, I am still not convinced that this is an FA-quality source.

– Epicgenius (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Splitting section "Original building"

I think the subsection on 9/11 should be moved to a new section. It's better not to have to scroll to such a distinct and important topic. Anon4z58u770 (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a Duplicate

This article is a featured one but while searching for the world trade center I found another GA class article named World Trade Center (1973-2011). Isn't it a duplicate? PrathuCoder (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

No. DId you read both articles? Acroterion (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

No. This article is about a specific building (or rather, buildings) that are part of the WTC site. The WTC (1973-2001) article is about a completely different topic, namely the first complex (which includes the original 7 WTC and also other buildings). – Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging Draft:7_World_Trade_Center into 7_World_Trade_Center.Figbiscuits (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

This draft actually exists because of the split proposal above. It's not a different article; rather, it's an outline of what the article will be like after it is split.

A merge implies that all of the content of the draft will be added to the article, regardless of whether the info related to the old 7 WTC will be removed. Since the discussion above is about whether the articles should be split in the first place (and the relevant info copied to the draft), I feel like this merge discussion will confuse people, since the 7 WTC draft is specifically intended for a split, not as a duplicate of this article. Furthermore, the existence of Draft:7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) and Draft:7 World Trade Center is already mentioned above. Therefore, I'm removing this tag to reduce confusion. Epicgenius (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

University of Alaska study

Is there any truly objective reason why editors keep removing the mention of a formal study written by a qualified professional at an accredited school of engineering? 2604:B000:A218:41A:E6DB:1650:9459:8D54 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You mean this one? It's because the study is a WP:FRINGE theory, promoted by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Per WP:ONEWAY, "Fringe views, products, or those who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." – Epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Post-split FA status

To break out the discussion from above. I recommend sending both split articles back through FA since they are both materially different (in content and scope) than the one previously reviewed, as well as the URFA commentary above to be addressed. czar 15:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, also leaving the implementation/redirection of Draft:7 World Trade Center here to you, since you know the content best czar 15:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @czar. I definitely was thinking of demoting this page from FA, then sending both articles back through the relevant processes. I will probably be able to split the page in a few days. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see you split the article already. I will try to correct some of the links to this article later, in that case, just to make sure they're pointing to the right place. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I've fixed all article-space links. Links in other namespaces, such as template or portal, have not been corrected yet. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)