Talk:World Trade Center Tower 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Architecture Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, which aims to create, expand, and maintain articles that relate to skyscrapers, high-rises and towers. To participate, visit the project page for more information.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the assessment scale.

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the assessment scale.

	NYC Portal This article is part of WikiProject New York City, an effort to create, expand, and improve New York City-related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

This location-related article lacks geographic coordinates. You can help by adding them (please don't be overly precise).(February 2008).

Contents 1 130 Liberty Street 2 "Official Name" 3 Requested move 3.1 Survey 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Continued discussion 4 Fair use rationale for Image:WTC 5.jpg 5 Officially named? 6 Uncertain Fate

[edit] 130 Liberty Street

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

[edit] "Official Name"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

At the risk of WP:CREEP I'm beginning to think that we badly need a guideline on official names, to clarify what is already said in WP:NC, or possibly to express a change.

AFAIK official names have very little standing in the current article naming conventions. They are relevant only if they are widely adopted and used, as is often but by no means always the case. That will obviously come as a surprise to many, and perhaps there's something I've missed, or perhaps it should change. But for the moment, those are the guidelines as I see them. Andrewa 18:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Continued discussion

The discussion above was archived before I could make what I think is a very important point, so I'll add it outside the archive box. I strongly disagree that if readers are more familiar with "World Trade Center Tower 5", then it is fine. No, WP:NC should be followed, and in this case that means naming the article according to the more familiar title, whatever that is. If this debate had continued, I'd have suggested a few links to substantiate the claim that the street address rather than the current article name is the common name for this building. That's the issue. Certainly, many buildings such as 10 Downing Street and 120 Collins Street are commonly known by their street addresses, but many people wouldn't even know the street address of the White House, and I guess the Empire State Building has a street address too but I've never heard it quoted. Andrewa 18:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have completely misunderstood my point. I was not saying Who cares what readers think? This name is better. Confused people will end up here anyway. I personally think that neither name is very familiar with readers, but that "130 Liberty Street" has just as much of a notability amongst readers than "World Trade Center Tower 5", probably more, as "130 Liberty Street" is being used on skyscraper forum sites. However, for readers who do find "World Trade Center Tower 5" to be more notable (who I don't believe to be in tha majority), and who type it in as such, they would still be redirected to the correct article. If there was one known familiar name for the majority, then it should be used. But the question is, which name is it? It is currently not clear what the familiar title is; I happen to think it is "130 Liberty Street" because that is the name readers familiar with skyscrapers will know, but JRWalko disagrees, and also has points to support the opposite theory.

The main problem with the street address is not that it is not used, but that it is used just as often, probably more often, to describe the Deutsche Bank Building. That is why this debate ended; until that building has completed demolition, it will likely be the primary use for "130 Liberty Street". Raime 19:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability has little if any relevance here IMO. Agree you were not saying Who cares... etc, which seems to have even less relevance. I'm unsure whether it was good to withdraw this nomination, but it's done now. Consensus seemed unlikely, and there was never any evidence presented, just opinions. Strongly suggest that any further nominations be based on WP:NC. Andrewa 20:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Not in the Wikipedia sense of the word, but in the actual definition: one name being "significant" to readers. Could you please explain what you meant by [I strongly disagree that "if readers are more familiar with "World Trade Center Tower 5", then it is fine"], because I clearly do not understand. As for evidence of usage of the term, this was listed above. If you mean evidence of a familiar name, that is based on opinions in this case anyway. Could you please explain your rationale on why it was not good to withdraw the nomination? (Not trying to be rude, just do not understand) There is nothing on WP:RM that forbids or discourages it, at least not that I could find. IMO, if a name ("130 Liberty Street") currently refers more to another building (Deutsche Bank Building) the majority of the time, then moving to a different building is clearly not a good idea at the present time, and debate is pointless. I don't see anything on WP:NC that relates to naming buildings specifically, besides the general principle of Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature, which will be followed. "World Trade Center Tower 5" is likely more confusing and unfamiliar with readers than "130 Liberty Street", due to the existence of the much more well known 5 World Trade Center. But again, this is an opinion, and pretty much all positions about the familiar term for this building are based on opinions. When an official name is released, that will be the "easily recognized name" (as it will be used on the WTC official site, likely in the press, etc.), so this page will move then. Raime 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. I have no interest in discussing what notability might mean in some other context. By strongly disagree, I mean that I am confident that the statement is false. It's not fine at all.

It was IMO bad to withdraw the nomination because it curtailed discussion while leaving misleading statements unanswered. Agree that the move should not go ahead (obviously), but there was little or no chance of that anyway. Not a major point. If you'd just withdrawn your vote, someone else would probably have closed the debate for you, and that would have been fine. Not a major point at all.

Disagree that When an official name is released, that will be the "easily recognized name" (as it will be used on the WTC official site, likely in the press, etc.), so this page will move then. This may well happen, but it remains to be seen. I can see that you have already decided that the page will move, but that should depend on the adoption of the official name by English speakers generally, which is probable but not inevitable. And if it doesn't happen, then the page shouldn't move to the new name however official it might be.

At least, not under current guidelines. But there have been many recent nominations to move articles away from popular names and to official or correct names, so I'm wondering whether the guideline needs to be updated, either to clarify the existing position, or modify it to give greater weight to official names, as many seem to want. Andrewa 13:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, there was no rule that prohibited using dictionary terms on talk pages, even if there are similarly-named rules. There was clearly no confusion with WP:NOTABILITY when I stated: "just as much of a notability amongst readers" and "who do find "World Trade Center Tower 5" to be more notable". I have no interest in discussing what it means either, but I do feel that if I am questioned for using it, I can defend my actions. And I got the point that you "strongly disagree". Your above comment provided no clarification. What I meant by the comment was that even if "130 Liberty Street" is the familiar term with most readers, there will always be some readers (who are not in the majority) who are more familiar with "World Trade Center Tower 5", or any name. However, for those in this minority who search for "World Trade Center Tower 5", it is fine, as they will still be redirected to the right article, just one that has a different title using the name that the majority of readers is familiar with. What is false about this statement? All readers are never going to be satisfied by one name, but the one that most are familiar with needs to be used.

I disagree about the closing of the requested move. Clearly, discussion was not curtailed. (What are we doing right now?) The only difference is that this discussion will not be archived. Any "misleading statements" can easily be cleared up here, but I think my reasoning was pretty clear.

Your position assumes that "World Trade Center Tower 5" is the current "familiar" term with readers, and it isn't. I stand by my original statement, that this page should be moved when an official name is released. I admit its presumptious. But when an official name is released, it will be used in the press and on the WTC official site, which is what readers will gather information from and therefore become familiar with. I don't see how any other "familiar term" can be found. "World Trade Center Tower 5" is currently not a name that most are very familiar with when concerned with this particular tower; it is used widely to describe the former WTC 5. So no matter what, the solution will not be to keep it at this name. I don't see how a "familiar name" other than the official name can be found, but if one is, then this page can be moved to that name. Raime 20:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to save you and others from wasting everyone's time. If, as you say, the official name becomes widely used, then there will be no problem, so why make one? But if you think that an official name automatically becomes the name of a Wikipedia article, then you are wrong (see Statue of Liberty for example), and I was and still am concerned that people reading your comments would assume that this is the case.

But so long as this is understood, there is no problem. Just (at the risk of repeating myself) be aware that if you intend to list this for a move as soon as an official name is announced, you'll have to show then that the official name already has common usage, as distinct from expressing your opinion that it will or should become the common name in time. Otherwise, the risk is that the nomination will be rejected again, and that (assuming that you are right and it does become the common name, and that your enthusiasm and stamina hold out) you'll then need to do it a third time. Far better IMO to wait until you have evidence that this predicted official name has been taken up in common speech, which may only be a couple of days, again assuming you are right. Andrewa 08:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the clarification. And I am not saying that the official name automatically becomes the name for all articles, but for proposed skyscrapers, this is always the case. As far as I know, there is only one exception for all skyscrapers in general - the John Hancock Tower - and that has been completed for over 30 years. The only way to show that a new name will be the official name is by reporting press releases and the official building website, which will undoubtedly use the official name. For a proposed skyscraper, there is really no other way to prove familiarity among readers. The point behind my argument was that "World Trade Center Tower 5" has never been used widely to describe this tower (see the Google search), and was therefore never the "old name". That was my logic to moving the building when the new name was released. If another name that was widely used to describe the tower was already in place for the article, then I would not have brought up this discussion now. But the problem is, that is not the case. Raime 12:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with most of this, but I think we've given the topic a good airing, so let's just agree to disagree. Andrewa 07:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Raime 12:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WTC 5.jpg

Image:WTC 5.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 05:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have fixed the fair use rationale so that it now qualifies for use in this article. Rai-me 06:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Officially named?

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)

[edit] Uncertain Fate

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)