Talk:7 World Trade Center

message: This article is a featured one but while searching for the world trade center I found another GA class article named World Trade Center (1973-2011). Isn't it a duplicate? PrathuCoder (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No. DId you read both articles? Acroterion (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

text: No. This article is about a specific building (or rather, buildings) that are part of the WTC site. The WTC (1973-2001) article is about a completely different topic, namely the first complex (which includes the original 7 WTC and also other buildings). – Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is a Duplicate 

message: I propose merging Draft:7_World_Trade_Center into 7_World_Trade_Center.Figbiscuits (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This draft actually exists because of the split proposal above. It's not a different article; rather, it's an outline of what the article will be like after it is split.A merge implies that all of the content of the draft will be added to the article, regardless of whether the info related to the old 7 WTC will be removed. Since the discussion above is about whether the articles should be split in the first place (and the relevant info copied to the draft), I feel like this merge discussion will confuse people, since the 7 WTC draft is specifically intended for a split, not as a duplicate of this article. Furthermore, the existence of Draft:7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) and Draft:7 World Trade Center is already mentioned above. Therefore, I'm removing this tag to reduce confusion. Epicgenius (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Is there any truly objective reason why editors keep removing the mention of a formal study written by a qualified professional at an accredited school of engineering? 2604:B000:A218:41A:E6DB:1650:9459:8D54 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean this one? It's because the study is a WP:FRINGE theory, promoted by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Per WP:ONEWAY, "Fringe views, products, or those who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." – Epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  University of Alaska study 

message: To break out the discussion from above. I recommend sending both split articles back through FA since they are both materially different (in content and scope) than the one previously reviewed, as well as the URFA commentary above to be addressed. czar 15:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Epicgenius, also leaving the implementation/redirection of Draft:7 World Trade Center here to you, since you know the content best czar 15:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the ping @czar. I definitely was thinking of demoting this page from FA, then sending both articles back through the relevant processes. I will probably be able to split the page in a few days. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see you split the article already. I will try to correct some of the links to this article later, in that case, just to make sure they're pointing to the right place. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed all article-space links. Links in other namespaces, such as template or portal, have not been corrected yet. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-split FA status