Talk:One Worldwide Plaza

Untitled
Wikipedia as the Real Estate Section. No attempt at creating encyclopedic context: a raw advertisement --Wetman 21:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the previous comment is a bit outdated now. However, I think we should just call this "Worldwide Plaza" and mention the three main buildings. It was built at the same time and it's effectively one big unit dm 05:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple pictures?
I'm not sure why we have multiple pictures of essentially the same thing (eg: two of the towers, then two of the fountain) dm 04:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I took two new pictures because I didn't like someone else's old ones. Now, don't peek at the record, but of each pair, which do you like better?  We should get rid of one of each, if others do not object, and I'll try not to object on the basis of pride if mine get the black ball.  Jim.henderson 04:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I dont care either, even though they were mine :) Tell you what, let's let the next person pick which two to keep. dm 07:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So, interest does not seem intense except among us shutterbugs. I only took up photography {with a broken camera} a few weeks ago and this was one of my first subjects.  This month or next I hope to gain access to a roof that looks down on the #3 building, though maybe not down into the plaza.  If any of my pictures come out well, then we'll have five or maybe even six.  At that point the article will definitely be photo-heavy and we can move the majority to a Gallery or out of the article entirely.  In springtime I'll buy a camera that's not broken and maybe get on the roof for shots with a western rather than southern sun.  Meanwhile the article is only modestly heavy with photos, and I figure we can keep them until more arrive or other editors think trimming is already a good idea.  Jim.henderson (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

One and 1
I notice the name of the article has been moved back and forth without explanation here. If you intend to move it again, would you kindly explain why? And, while you're at it, why an article about three buildings and the plaza between should only have the name, in whatever version, of one of them? Jim.henderson (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Jim.henderson, at least regarding your second question, I agree. It's kind of weird that only one building in the complex is mentioned. The current article also attempts to cover 2 and 3 Worldwide Plaza, but these buildings are really only mentioned in the lead as an afterthought. I'm thinking of replacing the current version of the article with this draft in my userspace. There are a few things I should note, though:
 * First, I can really only find sources about the history of the office building, plaza, and theater. There is remarkably little coverage about the residential buildings' architecture, or about the history of the residential buildings after construction started. So the new article will still primarily be about One Worldwide Plaza.
 * Second, there are quite a few sources that refer to the office building as just "Worldwide Plaza" (neglecting the residential buildings entirely).
 * This is probably one of the most confusing situations I've encountered. The article should probably renamed Worldwide Plaza (New York City) anyway, and it will include some info about the plaza and residential buildings. Paradoxically though, most of the information will still be about the office building (the current subject of the article) due to the lack of sources that discuss the residential structures. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Drop the "one" and the "1"
I think we should move this article to "Worldwide Plaza" dm (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * this has been gone back and forth for some time...most of the more reputable sources (,, and ) refer to it as One Worldwide Plaza. --emerson7 06:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)