7 World Trade Center is aformer featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, checkthe nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofNew York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofArchitecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate toskyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related tofirefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting
This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theimportance scale.
Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates topost-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with thecontentious topics procedures before editing this page.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we have separate articles for the original 7 World Trade Center and the new one? I ask because this article, despite its inbox being the new 7 WTC, has more of a focus on the original building. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk)09:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion I don't know what other people think, but my personal opinion is that we should at least consider it. However, the fact that it's a featured article means we really should get consensus for a split before trying to split it ourselves. I'm not sure whether the two resulting articles would be up to FA standards; there's a lot of info about both of them, but such a major change may mean a featured article review is needed. –Epicgenius (talk)12:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I have to agree; we need a consensus first, and a feature article review would help get a better consensus on this. My opinion now remains the same as it did in September, having this articles split in two makes the most logical sense IMO, the other World Trade Center buildings are split in two, to separate the destroyed buildings from the rebuilt ones (e.g. One World Trade Center/Freedom Tower being the one post-9/11 and List of tenants of One World Trade Center being the one pre-9/11). We also have two pages for each respective World Trade Center complex as well. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk)13:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed a{{split}} tag from theList of tenants in 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) article. It seems that, rather than splitting the "tenants" article, we should move that page to7 World Trade Center (1987–2001), then relocate the info fromthis page into the 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) article. The only reason I have not done this yet is that this is a featured article (albeit an old one), so any major edit requires much more consensus compared to most articles.Incidentally, there is a similar issue with4 World Trade Center. This building also has a predecessor structure, but the old building, old building's tenants, and new building are all described in one article. Honestly, the WTC pages have suffered from this problem for two decades; the combination of old and new buildings into one article makes it really hard to focus on either structure. –Epicgenius (talk)15:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this is being kept as one article, the lead should be crystal clear that both buildings are described in the article. Keep in mind that the info box shows the specifics for the present building only. I find it more logical to have two articles, with each referring to the other with the About template up top. That is how the main buildings are handled. - -Prairieplant (talk)21:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there should be two articles, because of how notable the original wtc 7 was in terms of both historical context (9/11 history) and scientific context (a very unusual and unexpected structural collapse which sheds new light onto the science of building safety)2604:B000:A218:41A:E6DB:1650:9459:8D54 (talk)00:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)[reply]
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 asplit, not as a duplicate of this article. Furthermore, the existence ofDraft:7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) andDraft: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)[reply]
To break out the discussionfrom 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 theURFA commentary above to be addressed.czar15:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
