Talk:130 Liberty Street (WTC)

message: Why is this not located as 130 Liberty Street, per the other proposed World Trade Center Towers? Raime 19:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  130 Liberty Street 

message: This edit war has got to stop. I'm not really sure if "unofficially" belongs in the article, but it is certainly not "officially" known as anything. This article should follow the format of the other WTC articles, which use ADDRESS is the address for a new skyscraper to be erected as part of the World Trade Center reconstruction in New York City. The office building has also been referred to as World Trade Center Tower #. Unfortunately, this was not named 130 Liberty Street as the other articles were, so this would be an inappropriate lead sentence. Anyways, please do not change it to "officially", as this is clearly incorrect. In re: JRWalko - Just so you know, buildings that do not yet exist can have official names. Raime 19:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally wrote the lead as "The unofficially named..." because that's how the Wall St. Journal referred to it at the time. This building does not have a name and you are right that its name will most likely be its address. However, in compliance with the naming scheme of the previous WTC buildings this building carries the unofficial building designation of WTC Tower 5 which will be changed when 130 Liberty is deconstructed. I don't know what the edit war was about but this building does not have an agreed upon name as of yet. WTC Tower 5 is the name used for planning purposes. JRWalko 19:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit war took place when User: Welingming continually replaced "unofficially" with "officially" and "Proposed" with "Approved"; I apologize if you took my comment to mean it had anything to do with your edits. However, it appears to have ended. I agree that it is unofficially named, but I believe this article should be consistent with other WTC articles, with an address name. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning on why this article cannot be renamed "130 Liberty Street" now, as that is not the official name of the Deutsche Bank Building, and several reliable sites such as SkyscraperPage are already using that distinction. I was thinking of requesting a move, but I'll wait to hear your comments. Raime 20:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, now I see. I would leave it under this name for now until the Port Authority issues the official name that they'll be using. For all we know JP Morgan may decide to name it something else or the towers may go back to the WTC naming scheme before the Freedom Tower opens. JRWalko 21:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure. 130 Liberty Street seems like it is appropriate, because a) all other WTC towers except the Freedom Tower use this distinction, b) it is referenced on reliable sites, c) "World Trade Center Tower 5" can be easily confused with "5 World Trade Center", "World Trade Center 5", "WTC 5" and "5 WTC", which all redreict to the separate 5 World Trade Center article, and d) it is not the official name of the Deutsche Bank Building, so chance for confusion is minimal. Honmestly, I think a move would be the best option rioght now, particularly because of the high chance of confusion with the 5 World Trade Center article. As you stated, The Port Authority has not yet issued a name, so wouldn't "130 Liberty Street", the address, be appropriate? When an official name is released, the article can be renamed. But at this point, I think the best bet would be to move the article to 130 Liberty Street through WP:RM. Raime 21:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Official Name" 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support per nom. Raime 05:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I have removed "The officially named ..." from the article, as it seems very unnecessary and may not even be true. If the building has been officially named "World Trade Center Tower 5", then it really doesn't need to be stated; it would seem apparent that if a building has an official name, then the name of its Wikipedia article would be that official name unless otherwise stated. Does anyone disagree with this? However, I was under the impression that an official name has not and will not be released until later on in the building's development; perhaps 130 Liberty Street (per the long discussion above) or something related to JP Morgan Chase. If this is the case, then I think that we should reinstate "The unofficially named ..." into the article. Comments? Cheers, Rai-me 03:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Officially named? 

message: I've been hearing that this building may not be built, as JP Morgan has pulled out of the WTC site. Shouldn't that be mentioned on the article?--Lionheart Omega (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncertain Fate