Talk:Trump World Tower

message: ----
I'm a litte confused. The article says the penthouse was convert to three units, all of which sold. But the website seems to indicate that they were converted into six units with about four unsold. Who's right? --Atlastawake 22:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So is the web site wrong? It's been that way for months. You'd think if they merged apartments to exisiting owners they would update the site. David Youngberg 16:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: penthouse confusion

message: Trump World Tower has 72 constructed floors above grade/ground, although for marketing purposes, they are numbered to floor 90. (Gary Joseph 11:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Number of Floors 

message: In cleaning up the commercial tone the article had, I removed the following
:According to several New York magazines, many high profile celebrities, like Derek Jeter, Jay-Z, Bill Gates, Hideki Matsui, Sophia Loren and Harrison Ford, live and/or own property in the building, as well as royalty and many foreign missions.
While I'm sure many famous people and diplomats live there, without cites it's pointless.
--Akb4 06:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: hearsay removed

message: In October, 2001, Trump was heard to say that he wanted a parachute in case of a disaster in the building. Can this quote be linked to this tall building?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotoguzzi (talk • contribs) 16:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  parachute? 

message: I removed this material. There is a discussion at the Donald Trump article about if this material should even be in the campaign article. --Malerooster (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a discussion there whether it's appropriate in the Donald Trump article. It may very well, in fact, it's quite likely, that it's UNDUE in one article (a general level one, like "Donald Trump") but appropriate in another, like Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 or this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is undue weight here and being inserted/talked about to promote an agenda which isn't needed here. If the consensus is different than that, fine, otherwise leave it out for now. --Malerooster (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

text: I see no reason why this shouldn't be included here. It's clearly about the building and its history. The two-sentence snippet of text seems proportionate; one can hardly say that it's undue. As for the campaign article, it's irrelevant as to the inclusion/exclusion decision here. As VM accurately states, inclusion of a fact may be called for on one article but not on another. Neutralitytalk 22:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Neutrality, And you are an admin? That is very troubling that somebody with your trust and that user name wouldn't see the problem/reason of how this inclusion is completely politically driven and being introduced to make a political point. Are any other specific sales mentioned(besides Jeter, which really isn't that noteworthy, but whatever, I guess you just added that to justify the Saudi purchase inclusion? this is getting bad)? Of course not, so it smacks of partisanship. --Malerooster (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I just added a sentence on another noteworthy former tenant of the tower (Derek Jeter, 2001-2012) — I can't see how that isn't noteworthy, given the coverage by the New York Times, New York Daily News, Curbed, etc. If reliable sources discuss a person/entity being a tenant in detail, it seems to me that there's no reason to exclude the mention. Neutralitytalk 23:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Another noteworthy tenant? I didn't know the Saudis were noteworthy. Of course there is a reason not to include, Wikipedia is not including every sourced detail in an article. Why is this "detail" being added? What value does it add to the understanding of the subject? Can you at least admit this "material"is being added for political reasons? --Malerooster (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, information about the type of tenants who live in the building is relevant to an article about the building. This seems pretty straightforward to me. It seems that it would be exclusion of this information, rather than inclusion, that would be political in nature. Neutralitytalk 23:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So a talking head or reporter or whoever makes the case today that Trump took money from the Saudis for an apartment in 2001, in one of his buildings, to show what exactly? He is a hypocrite because he is slamming Clinton for taking money from the Saudis? Let me guess, we should include this "material" and let the reader decide that, right? The dailynews article is a political gotcha piece and inclusion plays into that. --Malerooster (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence at issue (and in fact the article as a whole) does not accuse anyone of hypocrisy, or mention the election or Clinton or politics. I think you're getting rather far afield. Neutralitytalk 23:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

text: I'm tagging , who originally added the text. Perhaps he wishes to weigh in. Neutralitytalk 23:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok Neutrality, now you are pulling my leg. Which article are you talking about above?!? The dailynews article does mention Clinton and the associated implications and by adding this "material" to this article we are doing the same. --Malerooster (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about our article, Trump World Tower. Not the NY Daily News article. Neutralitytalk 00:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, again, Do you see that the dailynews article is a political gotcha piece with an agenda? --Malerooster (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand that this is your opinion, but (1) I don't accept this characterization (nor is anyone obligated to) and (2) I think your characterization is rather irrelevant to the question at hand, which is should we briefly note the fact of Saudi tenancy in the building in this  article about the building itself?, which seems to me to be unquestionably "yes," given that (a) the source is reliable as to this point; (b) the fact is undisputed; and (c) the mention is given two sentences, which is proportionate, proper weight. Neutralitytalk 00:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Thank you. --Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  2001 sale of the 45th floor to Saudia Arabia for 4.5 million 

message: This might be a useful reference. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stories vs Actual Floors 

message: The article says " The building is constructed with concrete to improve its wind resistance.[3]"
 
My understanding is that buildings conventionally "resist" the wind by swaying gently with it, and that this is just one of the several reasons steel framing is normally used in tall buildings.
 
Is this the real reason Trump chose to use concrete here?
 
David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Concrete? 

message: I would like to see an article about the World Bar.
:I think, per WP:NOPAGE, this page could probably contain all the info about the bar. If the info about the bar can fit in a single section, a separate page is not needed. Epicgenius (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Bar