Talk:List of tenants in 2 World Trade Center

June 2003
another column should be added to tell the reader where the tenants set up shop after September 11. Kingturtle 23:27 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I'd like to see that as well... perhaps I can do some research. Linuxbeak | Talk 13:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Rename
I'd like to rename these articles to the standard list style:


 * World Trade Center tenants -> List of World Trade Center tenants
 * One World Trade Center tenants -> List of tenants in World Trade Center One
 * Two World Trade Center tenants -> List of tenants in World Trade Center Two
 * Seven World Trade Center tenants -> List of tenants in World Trade Center Seven

Any objections? Seabhcán 08:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems ok to me.--Húsönd 23:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Same format for WTC1 and WTC2
It has been suggested on the discussion page of the WTC1 tenants for the different formats of the tenants lists to be uniformed into a single format. I think that it might be a good idea.--Húsönd 23:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Choose an order - either Ascending or Descending. However, the order of descending (highest floor first) does reflect the buildings themselves. Plus, with the floors marked red, it gives you an impression as to "how high" the impact zones were relative to the other floors. KyuuA4 05:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think decending is best. It would also be nice if List of World Trade Center tenants contained an alphabetical list of all companies, like an index. (But I know that would be a lot of work!) Self-Described Seabhcán 08:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the descending floors, agree with the alphabetical list, and agree that it will be a lot of work. I also think that there's too many red links through those towers. Maybe I'll try to fix that with a tsunami of stubs. --Hús ö nd 13:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Floor reorder done to match WTC1, with layout of each known floor occupant repeated in the same manner (no floor&dash;floor in the first column). Checked it for accuracy, anyone wants to reverify against prior version, please do so.  Didn't take so long if you have a good editor that does sorting...  Sparkhead  22:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Only 4 people escaped from the South Tower before its collapse. 17 Sadler/O'Neill employees couldn't possibly have.

Outdoor ob. deck
Actually, the upper observation deck is on the roof, not the 110th floor. I am taking it off of the 110th floor.--Chaz 02:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

South tower image
Ok, User: David J Johnson, so you reverted my September 2, 2001 edit on the WTC, sating it was an inaccurate date. Really? Click on the image. It says it was created on September 2, 2001.

Future WWE Champion, DrewieStewie (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I saw the date September 5, against the initial text. However, that does not effect that adding to the caption was unnecessary and poorly written. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, its confusing how one spot says Sep 5, and the other says Sep 2. Weird. File says Sep 5, but another part says Created: Sep 2. Just plain weird ant confusing :/ Future WWE Champion, DrewieStewie (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggest moving to "List of tenants in Two World Trade Center" (to match the other tower)
Currently, these lists are located at "List of tenants in One World Trade Center" and "List of tenants in 2 World Trade Center", with an appropriate redirect from "List of tenants in 1 World Trade Center" to "List of tenants in One World Trade Center"... I recommend moving this page ("List of tenants in 2 World Trade Center") to "List of tenants in Two World Trade Center", and setting up the appropriate redirect (to match the other tower).

To summarize: "1" -> "One" currently, but "2" doesn't redirect, and "Two" doesn't exist. Recommend "1" -> "One", and "2" -> "Two"

New infobox picture
I think this page could do with a new lead image. The current one is taken from a rather poor angle looking up at the tower from the base; in my opinion, a more distant shot would be preferable. After looking through the commons gallery, I have come up with three potentials to choose from. Here they are. Now, all three of them do feature both towers in the shot instead of just the South, but so does the infobox page for the North Tower's. Hmm1994 (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmm1994 I rescaled the current picture down to 250px, and it looks much better on PC. Aaron106 (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Agreed. I noticed you said in a previous message you didn't like it very much. Does it look fine now that it's been scaled down? Hmm1994 (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It does, i think you maybe had it at 300px before because with the 1 World Trade Center page the attena takes up a part of the top half of the picture so you wanted to try make the picture sizes equal on each page. Although on 2 World Trade Centre at 300px the tower looks way to zoomed in. Aaron106 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of tenants in 1 World Trade Center (1971–2001) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)