Talk:Five World Trade Center

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles

Skyscrapers

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles

New York City

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles

5 WTC is not happening[edit]

Rather than getting into an edit war, I'm going to post this first. 5 WTC is not being built. Indeed, construction updates from LMCCC refer to the location as the former 130 Liberty Site. To my understanding, and to my best knowledge, the space for 5 WTC is being used for other purposes. Namely, the below ground portion, currently referred to as the "South Bathtub" will be the site of the Vehicle Security Center, targeted for completion in 2014. The VSC will be capped by a "Liberty Street Park" (currently in the design phase) and the rebuilt St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. If someone can post an up-to-date or current source showing that the construction at the South Bathtub is for an actual office building, I will be happy to incorporate it into the article. However, the links in the article that state that 5 WTC will be built are 3-4 years out of date.WasAPasserBy (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:WasAPasserBy, the article is certainly out of date. As the user above pointed, 5 WTC does not seem to have a future. There has been little talk from the officials regarding the status of 5 WTC, or if it is getting built. The main issue is real estate: JP Morgan Chase was originally slated to be the main tenant, but it is interested in maintaining its current headquarters in Midtown, especially after the financial recession. NYU was interested in space in Lower Manhattan, but as a NYU student myself, I have not heard any succinct plans in moving to Downtown. Rather, its initiative is to expand into Governor's Island, Brooklyn and Kips Bay, and redevelop the space around Washington Square. There have been discussions about moving the cultural center to the 130 Liberty Street footprint, but this is not official. In regarding its current status, I see a circular ring/oblong steel structure in the 130 Liberty Street footprint (SW corner of Greenwich of Liberty). The structure does not seem to be consistent with an office building, especially the one that is proposed for the site.WTC Progress Page on FB LMCCC has made mention of a Liberty Park, and I think that seems to be the fate for much of the area. Pending additional details in the future, the article should talk about the original 5 WTC and perhaps go into some of the planning history of the 5 WTC office building. But for all it matters, the building does not seem to be happening. Never gonna give you ^up, never gonna let you _down 01:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Pixelated picture of The Sphere[edit]

I was curious as to why the picture of The Sphere was pixelated, so I read up on it a bit. Since The Sphere was installed prior to 1978, and I can't find any evidence of a copyright notice accompanying it, does it not belong in the public domain? Based mostly on this. I'm probably wrong mind you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Communist00 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question. I've never heard anything more ridiculous in my life than the suggestion that an inanimate statue has privacy rights; moreover I am aware of no copyright consideration that should prevent a publicly displayed statue being photographed, and those photographs placed in the public domain (or even retained by the photographer, should he wish). Moreover, the article on the statue itself contains several photographs of the statue without any pixellation (which is hardly surprising, since I've never seen anything like this ever before). Looking at the edit history, and the history of the image itself - which was originally posted uncensored - it appears the user who posted that caption was simply parroting what had been said by the person who subsequently "updated" the image with the pixellation. Personally I'd be all for reverting that image back to its original unedited state, since apparently its rights status was considered sufficient for inclusion in the Wikimedia commons, but since someone has raised a potentially valid question of privacy in regard to the woman in the photograph, that's not something I want to do unilaterally. However, it's my considered view that having a photograph in this article showing a pixellated statue accompanied by a spurious explanation about privacy rights, actually detracts from the article's overall quality, because the experience of reading it becomes - certainly for me, and I suspect also for the user above - about not learning about the subject matter, but pondering in abject bewilderment about what on earth is going on. I shall therefore spare future users this mystery by removing the photograph and its caption from the article, and I ask that it not be replaced in that form unless consensus is reached that it should be. There are plenty of other images that could be used instead, but I really think the article is better off with no image at all than with that mess. Lordrosemount (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

split article[edit]

If nobody objects, I'd like to split this article into two articles:

130 Liberty Street for the new building, as that seems a commonly used name for it.
have this article be only about the original building.

This will make it easier to be able to link connect both to wikidata to get interwiki links and data, and I think generally make the articles clearer. --Aude (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 June 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to 5 World Trade Center by me Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Five World Trade Center → 5 World Trade Center – According to the official World Trade Center website here, all buildings use numeral names except One World Trade Center. All other articles use the numerical name 2 World Trade Center, 3 World Trade Center, 4 World Trade Center, 7 World Trade Center but not this one. That is why I propose moving the page per WP:CONSISTENCY. CookieMonster755 ^📞 ^✉ ^✓ 23:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CookieMonster755:

Already done. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@CookieMonster755: This RM has been closed only because requested move was actually unnecessary; the only thing in the way was a redirect with history. So, WP:RMT would be fine for these types of requests. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I did not know. Thank you very much, Epicgenius! ;) CookieMonster755 ^📞 ^✉ ^✓ 20:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CookieMonster755: No problem.

Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]