Talk:Twin Towers (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Removal of NY-WTC[edit]

Dear editors,

The New York WTC link have been removed due to the fact that this is a disambig page, not a list of all the twin-towers ever in existence, as doing so will clutter the page. Please link the article to lists such as this or/and this. No harm done, its just to follow rules of disambig pages. All comments welcome. Have a good day. Rehman (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will clutter the page. I can't think of that many more former buildings with twin structures. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split, move, reorganization[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A disambig page is designed to help users find articles that they are likely looking for given the title they have provided. For North American wikipedians, at least, the phrase "Twin Towers" is overwhelmingly associated with the World Trade Center; a quick Google or Factiva search will easily verify this. As nice as it is as an Albertan to see Bankers Hall featured so prominently, they really aren't referred to as 'Twin Towers', they just are twin towers. Aside from failing to identify the single most prominent article associated with this title, this page also has a lot more content than is suggested by WP:DAB, which makes it difficult to find articles which are listed that would plausibly be associated with the article name Twin Towers.

I would propose:

The Hitchiker's Guide reference is rather trivial and extremely unlikely to be what the reader is looking for, so I'd axe it.--Trystan (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support option 2: move back this page to Twin Towers. This is not really a DAB page, because none of these pages would ever be called "Twin Towers" in a global encyclopedia. Instead, it is a page about the twin-tower design, and famous examples of it. And since it is not a DAB page, a few trivial media references don't hurt. 87.115.2.237 (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion
  1. build a dab page for twin tower/twin towers... here's a good as any, alternately use twin towers (disambiguation)
  2. redirect Twin Towers to the NYC WTC; despite the claim that a proper dab would _not_ list the NYC WTC, this is clearly not helpful, and bureaucratic/WikiLawyering, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, it's stupid not to list the NYC WTC, because it's the most prominent usage of the term.
  3. create the list of twin towers from the current page contents
  4. move Twin Tower to Twin Tower design
  5. redirect Twin Tower somewhere
70.51.11.201 (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Trystan & 70.51.11.201,
The proposal for creating a new article for List of twin buildings seems to be a good idea, since listing every twin-structure in a disambiguation page dosen't seem convenient. Do give me some time as i am working on the procedure mentioned above. The only objection to the above proposal is that i dont think it is a good move to remove any disambig links since this is an international online encyclopedia and people do search for unbelievable articles. All comments welcome. Have a good day. Rehman (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Completely support the proposal. This actually is quite simple. This page was moved here from "Twin Towers" on 16 August for no reason other than "Title is much more appropriate to the contents". But there is now no article at "Twin Towers" (it redirects here) and "(disambiguation)" is never needed as part of the article title unless there is another article that is the primary topic. Not to mention the "s" was dropped along the way. This article should be moved back to "Twin Towers". Station1 (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Station1,
On the basis of the above mentioned proposal, I have completed the necessary procedures. This artcicle have been completely changed to an ordinary disambiguation page and a new article have been created to list all other twin and other multiple identical structures (in the world) which are not listed in the disambig page. Dont get me wrong, but i dont understand why there should be an article named Twin Towers, as such a name cant list the items which this article contains (disambig links). No harm done, i hope you understand. All comments welcome. Have a good day. Rehman (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for creating the new article. It is not necessary for an ordinary disambiguation page to actually have the word "(disambiguation)" in its title. Please see WP:DAB#NAME: "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself" unless there is a primary topic already using that name. Since there is no article using the name "Twin Towers", that name is preferred for this disambiguation page. Adding "(disambiguation)" to the title serves no purpose. Station1 (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip Station1, or else i'll be renaming every single disambig-page that exists! :-). Should i (or anyone) remove the move tag on top of the page? Rehman (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, happy to help. Since this has been listed at WP:RM, an admin will come along in a few days, either move the page or not, depending on discussion, and remove the tag. Station1 (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh and by the way this did happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.61.221 (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


New Articles[edit]

I am a student who needs to make a presentation on a country. My country is America, and so I needed something for America. I decided to include the Twin Towers, because that's a major part of America. So I went online and started searching the Twin Towers, but believe it or not all I got was World Trade Center Articles and Videos of the Twin Towers collapsing. The point is, I wanted to make an article on Wikipedia, but I just don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedude7195 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 January 2015[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: not moved. (non-admin closure) Rider ranger47 Talk 16:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Towers → World Trade Center List of Twin Towers – I think that the current page "Twin Towers" should be redirected to New York's World Trade Center, because the Twin Towers in Manhattan seem like the primary topic of "Twin Towers". Than create a new page called "List of Twin Towers", which list all the twin buildings in the world. CookieMonster755 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a malformed move request. I have changed the wording to reflect what the nominator proposes. —  AjaxSmack  21:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anything then Twin Towers → Twin Towers (disambiguation), but really the current location of the dab at the baseline seems to reflect less than 66% of Google Book hits needed to claim a primary topic exists. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nomination as originally entered This is not about the "World Trade Center" which is an article in itself and should not be overwritten by this page. Oppose deletion of this article by conversion into a redirect turning this into a redirect to "World Trade Center" is bad, I fail to see why we wouldn't have a disambiguation page for "Twin Towers", so this article should exist as it is, either here, or at Twin Towers (disambiguation). Neutral on creating a new article listing buildings called "Twin Towers", but it should not be called "List of Twin Towers", since that gives no indication of the topic (the disambiguation page already lists many non-buildings, so the scope of such a list article is unclear under that name), instead it would be called "List of Twin Towers structures" or the more generic List of twin towers structures or somesuch. Yes I think the destroyed WTC1 and WTC2 Twin Towers are the primary topic for the term. however I think that a new article should be created. Currently, One World Trade Center and Two World Trade Center cover two different buildinds that share the same street address. This is wrong, I think the old Twin Towers information should be split off into a new article say Twin Towers (Manhattan) or "Twin Towers". The new buildings should also be split off into new articles One World Trade Center (21st century) & Two World Trade Center (21st century) , with the current titles redirecting to the new "Twin Towers" article. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think you are getting what I am saying (or its just me) but my proposed move is renaming this current page "Twin Towers" to "List of Twin Towers". After that happens, than redirect "Twin Towers" to "World Trade Center". CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your nomination states you wanted to create a new article at "List of Twin Towers". It would be inappropriate to rename this article to that name, since this page is a disambiguation page, and not a standard list. I also think the Twin Towers should have a separate article separate from the World Trade Center, they certainly are notable enough for that. The agglomeration at 1WTC and 2WTC article names are horrid as they conflate two separate topics, the destroyed buildings and the current ones. Instead, historically, 1WTC and 2WTC have been treated as a unit, the "Twin Towers", so a separate article should be built for them. The Twin Towers are not the same as the WTC, as there was also WTC5, WTC4, etc. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a disambiguation page; its function is to direct readers to the right topic. The only options for it are to stay at Twin Towers or move to Twin Towers (disambiguation). It has a different format and function than List of tallest twin buildings and structures in the world.
This page would only be moved if a primary topic were identified for the term Twin Towers; that is, one topic more likely to be sought under that name than all others combined, and much more likely than any other topic. I'm not convinced that is the case here; a reader could likely be looking for information on twin towers generally, or one of the other sets of twin towers.--Trystan (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone please close this - the nominator is confused about the purpose of RM, the actual nom in template is not the proposal, and the project for one of the main articles likely to be affected, WikiProject Malaysia, hasn't been notified. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move to either target, but support move to Twin Towers (disambiguation). This is a disambiguation page, anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Epicgenius why should an ambiguous term redirect to the WTC when in Asia "Twin Towers" refers to another building? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: I never mentioned WTC. I suggested that the article "Twin Towers" have "disambiguation" appended. Epicgenius (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Epicgenius no, but the proposer did. Do you want "Twin Towers" to redirect to redirect to Twin Towers (disambiguation), or somewhere else, eg. Twin Towers (Malaysia)? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: As I said above, I will support a move to Twin Towers (disambiguation). Epicgenius (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, obviously there is an issue. Twin Towers should be directed to World Trade Center, its the primary topic of the subject, much more notable than the "Malaysia Twin Towers". The World Trade Center is one of the worst terrorist attacks, and I think that World Trade Center is the primary topic of Twin Towers, regardless of where you live, it was a worldwide tracidey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CookieMonster755 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But New York's WTC may be the most famous use only due to 9/11. No links point here anyway. We have the redirect Twin Towers (NYC) already.

Anyway, going back to the Malaysia point, the term "Twin Towers" is easily confused with Petronas Towers. Epicgenius (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:CookieMonster755 User:Epicgenius "most famous use" is not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, PRIMARY does not mean "primary", it means "absolute majority", see the guideline, the shortcut/redirect is misnamed/misleading. The question is; do 60-70% of "Twin Towers" refer to WTC in Books? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should leave the article title in place, since references to the WTC are not an absolute majority. Epicgenius (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the current status quo seems to work just fine. There is no clear primary topic, when considering the Petronas towers and the Wembley stadium usage.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -— Fine, you have convinced me there is no primary topic. So a Admin can shut it down. I guess my move request was more of a "opinion" than a "fact". CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2015 (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.

Requested move 17 April 2023[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is no consensus that the towers destroyed in 2001 are the primary topic of this term. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 07:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Twin Towers → Twin towers (disambiguation) – There is a clear WP:PTOPIC for the search term "Twin Towers": the two towers that were in the World Trade Center (1973-2001) that were destroyed during the September 11 terrorist attacks. As such, the base article should point to that page, while this disambiguation page should be moved to have "(disambiguation)" in its title. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The towers that got destroyed on 9/11 are definitely the primary topic within the US. However, there's a rapidly growing majority of English (Wikipedia) readers who are not from the US, and in their collective memory this event features less prominently. Still, this topic gets the lion's share of the usage, at 60% (830 monthly clickthroughs from the dab vs. 1421 total views [1]), and this will make it a primary topic in some (many?) editors' eyes.
    But there is another consideration as well. The navigational consequences of the proposed primary redirect are: 1) 830 readers will get straight to the article they need skipping the intermediate step of the dab page, 2) the few hundred readers who are looking for other topics with the name will have an extra step added: loading World Trade Center (1973–2001) before clicking through to the dab page, 3) that article will have to get a hatnote added, and that hatnote will take up a line of prominent space on the screens of the over 140,000 readers who view this article [2]. In my view, the benefits of #1 are overshadowed by the costs of #2 and especially #3. – Uanfala (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm British and I would have interpreted "Twin Towers" to mean the World Trade Center long before they were destroyed. Clear primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The oppose seems to be against the very concept of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which cleanly supports this move as per Necro and the nom Red Slash 21:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The oppose is not against the very concept of a primary topic, but just arrives at a different conclusion from yours on whether this article meets the primary topic criteria (WP:P1 and WP:P2). As for the second paragraph of my comment, yes, the reasoning there would apply even to a case of a very strong primary topic. This really shouldn't need stating, but if zealously following the guidelines leads to the encyclopedia become worse, then the guideline shouldn't be followed. WP:PTOPIC, while useful in the majority of cases, doesn't provide a complete, exception-free, guide to 100% of what goes into topic changes. – Uanfala (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: There is not a clear WP:PTOPIC, and in no way has this been demonstrated here. The disambiguation page shows a profusion of relevant pages, and searches for "twin towers" are littered by, among other things, references to the Petronas Twin Towers. A scholar search likewise produces a distinct mixed bag, and the relevance of the NYC towers also dims with every passing year. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There should really be a "Twin towers (architecture)" page too in the mix given both what is apparent in the scholar search and the significance of the architectural motif, but architectural articles are a bit of an area of neglect here. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(That's created now as a stub.) Iskandar323 (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Close, but, not the right thing to do. As historic buildings (destroyed 22 years ago, which is becoming long ago, noting the average age of all people is only 30 years), it is better to use, and encourage use, of the actual names. While the buildings don’t have interesting names, 1 WTC, 2 WTC, etc, with 1 WTC now being ambiguous, it is not helpful for have them linked as Twin Towers. The twin towers maybe. Also, there is Petronus, Petronas Twin Towers, which has a claim as an extant “twin towers”. Agree, there is a bit of anti-PrimaryTopic here. Excessive application of PrimaryTopic is a convenience for some, but is a barrier for more, and some editors appear to obsess over application of some “rules” over serving the readers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on percentage of pageviews from the dab on March 2023 clickthrough data, the primary topic is the WTC destroyed in 2001. I don't see a consensus for if there is a PT by long-term significance.
Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:18, 25 April 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.

Requested move 5 December 2023[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus is in favor of the move in accordance with the World Trade Center being the primary topic. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– According to https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Twin_Towers (Statistics), most people searching up "Twin Towers" are looking for the World Trade Center (1973–2001). Please move this per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per my comment in the above RM. Very clear primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • support clear primary topic—blindlynx 17:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The PTOPIC argument has actually weakened since the last RM, with a considerable amount of traffic now going to Twin towers (architecture), in addition to the legion other structures with similar names or nicknames. As has been noted previously, the trade centre might be the primary topic for "the twin towers", but it is more apt to keep the generic "twin towers" as a crossroads of disambiguation. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't change the fact the World Trade Center still has way more pageviews, and most people searching up Twin Towers still look for the WTC. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I should point out that this is not US-centric either. I'm in the UK, and overwhelmingly the Twin Towers refers to the WTC here too. It did before the attack and it still does after. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you were Malaysian, you'd likely associate it with the Petronas Towers, so yes, still systemic bias. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The USA has 10 times the population of Malaysia and way more Internet users are American than Malaysian. Besides, the Petronas Twin Towers are never just known as only the "Twin Towers". SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC mentions likelihood of interest and long-term significance. The first is debatable, subjective and subject to systemic bias; the latter diminishes with time, as more and more people are born who are unfamiliar with the name in connection with the WTC with every passing moment. As an ever receding historic connection, it can only become less domineering with time. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you describe is entirely subjective. Evidence suggests the WTC is the primary topic by a wide margin. Perhaps in 50 years the evidence might support some of what you say, but for now it does not. older ≠ wiser 16:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support of course. A very clear primary topic. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, based on evidence rather than conjecture, speculations, and opinions. older ≠ wiser 16:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Makes sense as Twin Towers usually refer to these two buildings destroyed on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. 120.28.224.32 (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Iskandar. There are plenty of twin towers around the world, usage doesn't suggest there's a primary topic at present, and the old WTC isn't the only one. And this isn't the US-opedia, it's a WP:WORLDWIDE organ.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't change my argument that the statistics clearly show the American Twin Towers are meant most of the time. This isn't Americentrism, this is per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comment above. Not just the primary topic in the USA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please consider re-reading the proposal and this is per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The "Twin Towers" commonly refer to the original buildings at the World Trade Center from 1973-2001. 120.28.224.32 (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always associated this term with the World Trade Center but as noted Twin towers (architecture) may at least for the lower case have enough long-term significance as well as the other instances of proper nouns to mean there is no primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per Iskandar. 1. A search on Google with 'Petronas Tower' throws up news that mostly use 'Petronas Twin Tower'. Also, Petronas Twin Tower is just in the neighbouring country, and imo, the association of 'Twin Towers' to Patronas' and WTC are at the very least equal. If it was not for the 9/11 attack, I wouldn't have associated the term to WTC. – robertsky (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support, per continuing interest and historical importance. BD2412 T 14:25, 13 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twin_Towers_(disambiguation)&oldid=1189936500"