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.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that One World Trade Center(pictured), at 1,776 feet (541 m) tall, is the tallest skyscraper in the Western Hemisphere?
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
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
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
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.
It is high time we opened a split proposal for this article into a separate one solely for the original North 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 North 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 will be suggesting the same be done for the South Tower. — ThatCopticGuyping me! (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed, just as what was done for 7 World Trade Center (1987-2001)? The list of tenants would merely just be a section in each article as opposed to 2 separate list pages? And we can see if the two towers are different enough for each to deserve its own article. I anticipate that perhaps a section could be devoted to the antenna alone for the North Tower. Though if we do decide to go for the unified article, it'd necessarily have to be significantly different than World Trade Center (1973-2001). — ThatCopticGuyping me! (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Regarding The list of tenants would merely just be a section in each article as opposed to 2 separate list pages?, yes, I anticipate that would be the case. The two towers share a lot of their history and architecture so that's why I suggested a combined article. Epicgenius (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Strong support per nom and the fact that it doesn’t make sense to have one article about two different buildings.
Support because the original tower is significant on its own and deserves a separate article. We can move over the tenants lists, although they are both pretty long so it might be better to just leave them be. Readingpro256talk to mecontribs15:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, but we can't change pictures just because you 'hate them', there needs to be a concrete reason, or pages will become instable with people changing things that don't need changing. Readingpro256talk to mecontribs03:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The article currently says: Floors 91–99 and 103–104 are mechanical floors with a reference to SkyscraperPage. But the source actually says floors 103-105 are mechanical floors. So is this source wrong? Other reliable sources, like Skyscraper Center don't say. Mokadoshi (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
As @Epicgenius pointed out in their latest edit on the page, the official 1WTC website lists the 104th floor as the top floor. For this reason, and because SkyscraperPage appears to be WP:UGC (but I can't tell for sure), SkyscraperPage appears to be unreliable for this article and I'd suggest we replace it with better sources. Mokadoshi (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Could we just put those incidents in the hisotry section? They seem a bit unnecessary. The Empire State Building has multiple shootings ans suicides but 1WTC has a dumb teen some parachuters and a broken window? How does the term "incident" look on this specific page? Are the terrorist attacks under an "Incident" section for the original Twin Towers page? Does "Incident" for a building on a Wikipedia page imply suicdes, suicide bombings, fights, shootings and such or just the fact the elevator dint run on Tuesday? 24.144.249.111 (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
