Talk:World Trade Center site

message: am i the only person out there that thinks that the world trade center shoud be rebilt as it once stood?
:Ceci n'est pas usenet. (Also: Yes.) - Dreamword 01:11 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)
----
"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)
replies: text: I figured it out, but a link should still be added.64.12.97.7 00:55, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Discussion


message: 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)
thread_title: panorama

message: 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)
thread_title: images

message: 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)
thread_title: Pile

message: 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".
::I think this is an error. Can someone fix it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.64.64 (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "finland island"?

message: "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)
thread_title: error, incomprehensible statement

message: Why are there no pictures of the site, pre bombing? 81.149.182.210 00:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  Since the majority of the history is actually pre-bombing, we should have some pictures of the original complex. Alyeska 15:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Refabs.jpg

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:200 Greenwich Street (WTC 2).jpg

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:New wtc.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  re: Under "Litigation", citation needed for rebuilding cost estimate claim 

message: 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
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
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)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Freedom Tower New.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: Correct; now that there is an article for Cordoba House, the duplicate material in this article can be removed.  Due to the association with Ground Zero, it is probably worth mentioning the mosque somewhere in this article (one sentence should be enough with a wikilink).  I'm not sure where to put it as this article is not very well organized. Fletcher (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cordoba House 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Construction section 

message: The photo that says it's from July 28, 2010, actually has a timestamp on it that says July 28 2009.  HuH? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 09:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the camera's date is off - I don't think that much of the Freedom tower was built a year ago. Fletcher (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo timestamp 

message: Should we add Template:Infobox historic site to this article? | helpdןǝɥ | 08:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion. 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
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.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:New York City Ground Zero map of damage.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge of [[World Trade Center rebuilding controversy]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Table of buildings 

message: ""
66.74.176.59 (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2015 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: 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)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more with this comment. It even has a transcluded section. What is the procedure to start a merge? Triplecaña (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of the Page 

message: 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)
replies: text: We can combine the refs. epicgenius (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many citations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  6 WTC? 

message: 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)
replies: text: World Trade Center is a disambiguation page, so it's not really possible to merge the two "articles." Do you want to move World Trade Center site to World Trade Center, and move World Trade Center to World Trade Center (disambiguation)? epicgenius 00:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's an idea. But I don't feel like this article is needed at all. Triplecaña (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know. Eight months ago I would have supported such a merge. But now we have a larger issue to deal with: if we conduct a merge, which article should we merge this with, and why? epicgenius, presented by reddit.com/r/funny (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Oppose merge, Support renaming and trimming: This page lacks clear focus and duplicates a lot of information from others, so that would plead for merging. However we need a space for the contents documenting the interim period between the destruction of the original WTC and the final state of the new buildings. In that sense this page may be rescued, and I would suggest renaming it to "Reconstruction of the World Trade Center". This narrative would start at Ground Zero and describe the various plans and challenges for reconstruction, ending with the inauguration of each new structure built. Duplicate information about the buildings themselves should stay in World Trade Center (2001–present). Conversely, sections of that page dealing today with reconstruction efforts should be lightened, condensed to a short paragraph and point here for details. This structure with 3 articles (original WTC, reconstruction, present WTC) would bring some clear delimitation and balance to the subject matter. — JFG talk 01:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I prefer Ground Zero but I guess that's already be hashed-out?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeVeeed (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ground Zero" is too ambiguous. It's a generic term for any ground zero of anything, so the current title is fine. epicgenius, presented by reddit.com/r/funny (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with  on this issue! :) CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 00:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Sort of agree: This page is redundant to World Trade Center (1973–2001), Collapse of the World Trade Center and World Trade Center (2001–present). I believe that its content is either duplicated on those pages or could be merged in. Fitnr 14:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Oppose merge (strongly), as the page covers buildings from all the site. It's basically like an omnibus page, describing each building, construction status and other stuff that would be difficult to look for in each individual article, or in an article about World Trade Center proper, which is large enough already. -Mardus /talk 03:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Strong Oppose, this is a very different article, and contains data specific to the topic. Randy Kryn 1:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong Oppose A merged article would be too long and present articles have specific information relating to subject headings. David J Johnson (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added  tag to http://www.dailyamerican.com/articles/2008/08/22/news/news/news808.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110113070306/http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-15/us/new.york.ground.zero.ship_1_ship-archaeologist-ground-zero?_s=PM%3AUS to http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-15/us/new.york.ground.zero.ship_1_ship-archaeologist-ground-zero?_s=PM%3AUS
*Added  tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_30_48/ai_83762552
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724210450/http://old.911digitalarchive.org/crr/documents/1126.pdf to http://old.911digitalarchive.org/crr/documents/1126.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225062850/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html to http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110311025040/http://manhattan.ny1.com/content/top_stories/135170/port-authority-scraps-plans-for-one-world-trade-center-restaurant to http://manhattan.ny1.com/content/top_stories/135170/port-authority-scraps-plans-for-one-world-trade-center-restaurant
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110529005245/http://www.ny1.com/content/special_reports/911_a_decade_later/139715/9-11-a-decade-later--conde-nast-to-occupy-1-world-trade-center to http://www.ny1.com/content/special_reports/911_a_decade_later/139715/9-11-a-decade-later--conde-nast-to-occupy-1-world-trade-center
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211043752/http://www.amny.com/news/local/am-wtc0622%2C0%2C6464804.story?coll=am-local-headlines to http://www.amny.com/news/local/am-wtc0622%2C0%2C6464804.story?coll=am-local-headlines
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711005221/http://www.ny1.com/content/special_reports/911_a_decade_later/142578/9-11-a-decade-later--the-9-11-memorial-from-all-sides to http://www.ny1.com/content/special_reports/911_a_decade_later/142578/9-11-a-decade-later--the-9-11-memorial-from-all-sides
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110921162237/http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/142057/port-authority--wtc-memorial-needs-another--3m-for-construction to http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/142057/port-authority--wtc-memorial-needs-another--3m-for-construction
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714220708/http://www.ny1.com/content/news_beats/transit/134565/port-authority-reports-increase-in-wtc-transit-hub-costs/ to http://www.ny1.com/content/news_beats/transit/134565/port-authority-reports-increase-in-wtc-transit-hub-costs/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430115756/http://www.ny1.com/content/special_reports/911_a_decade_later/138224/9-11-a-decade-later--port-authority-downplays-wtc-transit-hub-s-rising-costs to http://www.ny1.com/content/special_reports/911_a_decade_later/138224/9-11-a-decade-later--port-authority-downplays-wtc-transit-hub-s-rising-costs
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714220515/http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/133950/church-destroyed-on-9-11-files-suit-against-port-authority to http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/133950/church-destroyed-on-9-11-files-suit-against-port-authority
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512185601/http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/148968/historic-church-destroyed-on-9-11-to-rise-again to http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/148968/historic-church-destroyed-on-9-11-to-rise-again
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313083936/http://gothamist.com/2011/03/08/wtc_scraps_windows_on_the_world_pla.php to http://gothamist.com/2011/03/08/wtc_scraps_windows_on_the_world_pla.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171027131336/https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20131113/financial-district/4-wtc-becomes-first-tower-at-trade-center-site-open to https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20131113/financial-district/4-wtc-becomes-first-tower-at-trade-center-site-open
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110921173821/http://www.ny1.com/content/911_tenth_anniversary/911_top_stories/146403/wtc-memorial-ready-for-public-unveiling to http://www.ny1.com/content/911_tenth_anniversary/911_top_stories/146403/wtc-memorial-ready-for-public-unveiling
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.dailyamerican.com/articles/2008/08/22/news/news/news808.txt
*Added  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-manhattan
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714220922/http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/134620/city-shells-out--32-9m-to-lease-space-at-world-trade-center to http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/134620/city-shells-out--32-9m-to-lease-space-at-world-trade-center
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: OK, I have merged the two pages just now. If there is any compelling reason for the 10048 article to be un-split, it should be discussed here. epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[10048 (ZIP code)]] 

message: I have removed the  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)
thread_title:  Removed the update tag on the top of this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion