This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the 10048 (ZIP code) page were merged into World Trade Center site. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
|
|
|
am i the only person out there that thinks that the world trade center shoud be rebilt as it once stood?
"A public poll sponsored by the official planners saw "Neither" win comfortably over THINK with the Libeskind plan last." --What does this mean? A link should be added for it. 64.12.97.7 00:48, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I changed the part about the PATH line running through the footprint to say that it will unlikely that the track alignment be changed. In order to avoid the footprint, the tracks would have to make incredibly sharp curves that would either limit the stations size and usability or would be too sharp to be traversed by trains. - Boarshevik 18:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I took this 360-degree panorama 2 weeks before the collapse and wanted to offer it to be added to the article. I have released it under CC0. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:360-Degree_World_Trade_Center_Panorama_V2.jpg?fbclid=IwAR3lU4TJDpP7-AA41L56J-Z6NfoSYLMmHeJ-JBV69JLyk1xDku7J46IFk8A Dheera ( talk) 19:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The two images at the bottom of the main section could really do with catpions. I would add them myself, but I don't know what suitable captions would be. Thryduulf 10:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please don't add back The Pile. The World Trade Center site hasn't been described as the pile in since April 2002 (or earlier). patsw 17:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I lived in New York at the time and never once heard anyone nickname it "the Pile" -- if anyone used it then it was a very small group of people. If that's the case, then every nickname it was ever given should be referenced. Including this "nickname" on this page is misrepresenting reality. If it was used, it was not substantial enough to be referenced here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:7200:A0FA:8901:53C5:27EC:439B ( talk) 08:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
What does the second paragraph mean when it says that the WTC is located "in finland island"? It's on Manhattan island, and I've never heard anyone refer to the WTC, or any part of Manhattan, as "finland".
"The lease for the site and its rebuilding was purchased in July 2001..." This seems extraordinarily unlikely. The site did not need rebuilding at the time it was leased.
"The old tower footprints would be preserved as sunken pits where a "Wedge of Light" would honor the victims of the attacks by focusing sunlight on September 11 from 8:46 to 10:28 a.m. EST into the footprints. Other analysts doubt this." Huh?
kraemer 22:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are there no pictures of the site, pre bombing? 81.149.182.210 00:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Image:Refabs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:200 Greenwich Street (WTC 2).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:New wtc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Under "Litigation":
"Overall cost estimates for rebuilding the site range from $10 billion to $12 billion.[citation needed]"
A news article by the NYTimes might be a useable cite for this figure:
Rebuilding the World Trade Center site will cost roughly $10 billion, with two-thirds of that paying for the office, cultural and transportation buildings...
On the other hand, I'm wary about using the NYTimes as a cite, since their stories occasionally disappear behind the Archive wall, which requires subscription. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldctjoc ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Freedom Tower New.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: It would seem this would include the following (and last) Construction (timeline) section.
The article gives very little information about the site itself, other than information that is related to the September 11 attacks. Given this situation, it would be perhaps most appropriate to rename this article "World Trade Center site and the September 11 attacks" and create a new article about the site itself. The more consistent approach is to transfer most of the content of this article to a new article named Rebuilding of the World Trade Center. Proofreader77's comment that this would actually include much more that the Rebuilding chapter is correct. Cs32en 22:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
PS NOTING NEW EDITION OF PRE-TWIN TOWERS INFO: Interesting. More thinking ... And need to survey "What links here." Did I mention my thoughts are in flux? LOL Proofreader77 ( talk) 07:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the best way to associate Cordoba House with this article. It's not part of the WTC rebuilding effort. — Ashley Y 01:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I am working under the assumption that the Construction section was intended to link to pages of the new buildings post-9/11, and therefore have fixed the links accordingly. One of them redirected to World Trade Center and a couple others linked to the page of the old pre-9/11 building. If I did wrong, I apologize. Personally I feel that there should be links to both the old and the new buildings in the article, but that's just my opinion. XDB ( talk) 19:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The photo that says it's from July 28, 2010, actually has a timestamp on it that says July 28 2009. [2] HuH? Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 09:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Should we add Template:Infobox historic site to this article? | help dןǝɥ | 08:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:New York City Ground Zero map of damage.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 08:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC) |
I merged content from the World Trade Center rebuilding controversy before redirecting it. I am not familiar with the material so please edit it mercilessly.-- Adam in MO Talk 01:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The lead section deals almost exclusively with ownership of the site. Much of this content should be moved into the body of the article and the lead should be edited to better summarise the whole article. An interested editor could consider revising the lead with reference to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.54.142 ( talk) 22:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Some ref sequences have spaces between them. Remove all the spaces between < /ref > and < ref > (i.e. between closing previous ref and opening new ref). Example: [62] [63] show be [62][63].
Should there really be a huge paragraph about building delays in the description column of each building in the article's wikitable? Epicgenius ( talk) 00:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Developent [sic]"
66.74.176.59 ( talk) 07:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
In the section 2002 World Trade Center site design competition there occur two instances of Liebeskind which, properly spelled, should be Libeskind. Please replace, thanks. MichaelCaricofe ( talk) 04:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I would like to open a discussion on the necessity of this page. There is an ongoing discussion regarding the World Trade Center page being split or not. And this page, in my opinion, makes very little sense. I support either getting rid of this page entirely, and adding on the information from here into the World Trade Center page(s) or keeping the information about the site when it still was "Ground Zero." Either way, most of the information in this page is highly redundant and is in need of drastic change. I mean, isn't the World Trade Center site just THE World Trade Center? -- Laurelpeter122 ( talk) 23:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Construction of the memorial was completed before September 11, 2011. has like 9 references. Is that really necessary? Doesn' that violate WP:NPOV? Doblecaña ( talk) 20:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be mention of the lack of plans for a rebuild of 6 WTC, despite there being a 7 WTC. It seems to be a deliberate omission, so there must be a rationale, and the reason for the decision should be included in this article. -- 98.122.20.56 ( talk) 16:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I propose that World Trade Center site be merged into World Trade Center. As Laurelpeter122 said I also would like to open a discussion on the necessity of this page. This page makes very little sense. I support either getting rid of this page entirely, and adding on the information from here into the World Trade Center page(s) or keeping the information about the site when it still was "Ground Zero." Most of its information appears on the WTC article. Furthermore, a quarter of its size is a transcluded section. This article could talk about geology of the site, or propietorship of the land during the ages, that could be irrelevant to WTC article. Please, tell me your opinion. Triplecaña ( talk) 21:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 0 external links on World Trade Center site. 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, 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on World Trade Center site. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_30_48/ai_83762552When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on World Trade Center site. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on World Trade Center site. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dailyamerican.com/articles/2008/08/22/news/news/news808.txt{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ny1.com/content/special_reports/911_a_decade_later/146319/9-11-a-decade-later--one-world-trade-center-rises-in-lower-manhattanWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved for now. This page refers to the site of the former World Trade Center moments after it was collapsed in the attacks, not the center itself. Additionally, it's not clear which of the two buildings are the primary topic, and E might not work either considering the given differences in the two buildings. ToThAc ( talk) 18:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The World Trade Center complex in New York City is by far the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by historical significance. Having the World Trade Center base name pointing to the World Trade Center complex/site in New York would far benefit readers then a disambiguation page. The NYC World Trade Center was at the base name, until it was split into World Trade Center (1973–2001) and World Trade Center (2001–present). The World Trade Center in New York is the largest world trade center, the tallest and the most prominent, before and after the September 11 attacks.
Here are also some alternative suggestions:
Update: I would firstly support having the World Trade Center site become primary topic at the basename World Trade Center, and if that does not gain consensus, I would support Alternative A and Alternative E, respectively. CookieMonster755 ✉ 16:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this ZIP Code, on its own, has notability. It was known for being the ZIP Code for the WTC site. epicgenius ( talk) 15:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ update}} tag on the top of this article. There's already an update tag in the New buildings section, and I think the rest of the article is up to date. In any case, the update tag needs discussion. Please feel free to restore it in the appropriate section if you disagree. epicgenius ( talk) 03:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)