Talk:Willis Tower

---

Miscellaneous comments

Chicago Spire!

Why make a comment about the Chicago Spire being the tallest in the world? 1. It won't as the Burj Dubai will be completed before it and this has an estimated height of 2,684 ft. 2. This is not an artical about the Chicago Spire, maybe just make a reference to how the Sears Tower is going to be surpassed in 2010 by the Spire as tallest building in Chicago. 3. This section also reads poorly. i.e. "By either of these measures, the Sears Tower was only surpassed by the Taipei 101 in 2004,[citation needed] and around 2010 the Chicago Spire will be the tallest tower in the world surpassing the Taipei 101 and Sears Tower because it has a height of 2000 feet. The Chicago Spire will be in Chicago."

110 or 108 Stories Tall???

• By all accounts, the tower stands 110 stories tall from the ground level. Including the mechanical floors @ the top. Excluding those makes no sense because then why not exclude the mechanical floors below as well (since there are a few between floors 1 & 110).

What is the point of comparing the antenna height to the WTC? Why not then compare it to the CN Tower as well or any other tower ... This is an article about the Sears Tower, not the WTC or the events that transpired on 9/11.

Who owns the building?

• As of Feb 2007, New York based Joseph Chetrit and Joseph Moinian, and Skokie-based American Landmark Properties Ltd [1]

Comparing the cost of building the CN Tower to the Sears Tower is fairly pointless, the CN Tower is basically a hollow concrete pillar and the Sears Tower is an office building. - SINFUL OCTOPUS 04:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea if I'm going to mess this page up or not (first time posting anything here....) But 3.8 million square feet != 418,064 square meters I don't know which is correct but the math is clearly wrong.

The number of stories appears to differ between this page (110) and others. 50 Tallest buildings in the U.S. and Worlds tallest structures say 108. —Mulad 03:26, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is 110 stories per http://www.thesearstower.com/.

Just fyi, some sources count basement levels, while others only count levels above ground. This is why you see a variation. Most do not count parking levels, however (although I'm sure some do). --Quasipalm 19:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Finally someone got it right regarding the ludicrousness of assigning "world's tallest" title to the other buildings.

Since we have a picture of the Hancock Building from the Sears Tower, would there be a problem if I posted a personal PD picture of the Sears Tower from the Hancock Building? Just to get a visual reference between the two? BrianL03 08:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Yours would be even better probably. --Golbez 15:39, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Dude, your desire to contribute to Wikipedia is not a "problem". It's why Wikipedia exists! ---Isaac R 03:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • I've posted the picture online here.BrianL03

This article lists the height at 520 m, yet the Taipai as surpassing it, even though that is only 508/509 m high. Explain? - Guest - Trauma

The height to the tip of the taller antenna is 527 m, but the antennae are not considered an integral part of the building. The height is only taken to the rooftop, which is 442.14 meters. The correct height of Taipei 101 is 509 meters, by the way... 508 is an error resulting from mismeasurement. There are a couple of reasons antennae do not count in the official height -- one is that they change all the time and including them would make height rankings unstable (they're considered more like furniture than structure); another is that most tall buildings have some form of antenna or lightning rod, and since these are not shown on blueprints it would be almost impossible to get height listings beyond the very tallest buildings. Montalto 22:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding height, the 'highest restrooms' bit in figures and statistics has no mention of source and I can personally vouch for having used restrooms in the Shanghai WFC above 423m. So I have removed this line.

I was the one that entered the statistic about the restrooms, that was over a year ago before the opening of the Shanghai WFC, I have since edited it to include this fact based on your firsthand information about the higher restrooms. I still think its interesting to point out that the Sears has the highest in the western hemisphere and the second highest in the world, this is to distinguish itself from the CN Tower which has a higher observation deck but without a restroom. To me a floor is more of an "occupied floor" if it has a restroom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicago103 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

More sections needed

I've broken out the "tallest building" material and a paragraph on the sky deck into sections. But there's still too much random material in the first part. If anybody sees any basis for additional sections, be bold. ----Isaac R 03:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I went ahead and added a "history" section with a bunch of information from research I have done. ... duh! didn't know how to sign my name. Gws57 21:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Great stuff! Really improves the article. But don't forget to sign your talk page entrees with a ~~~~, which gets expanded to your name and a date stamp.. ----Isaac R 21:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sears Tower Picture

I think the new picture from User:Bmicomp is actually less clear than the old one. It's partially obscured by another building and the contrast with the sky makes the Tower look like a giant black blob. The old picture, I thought, was clear and showed window detail. At the very least it wasn't obscured by another building. Maybe we can include both shots. Any thoughts? Gws57 July 6, 2005 15:46 (UTC)

• Yeah, you have a point, it is quite obscured. The other one looked a bit dark though. Feel free to change it back. -- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

• The new picture has quite horrific lens distortion that makes the building in front look curved; also, it's not perspective corrected, so it looks like it gets thinner at the top. Nohat 6 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)

• It's also more a picture of the building in front of it, impressive in its own right, than the Sears Tower. --Golbez July 6, 2005 18:43 (UTC)

• Points well taken. I reverted it to the previous version. -- BMIComp (talk) 7 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)

The orthogonal version of the Sears Tower photo is well-intended, but I don't think it's an improvement. The original version had some perspective distortion, but at least the building still looked tall; now it looks kind of squashed. The current version is not a good representation of how the building looks in real life. Any objection to changing it back? (Full disclosure: I'm the one who posted the original version.) Image:Sears_tower_orthogonal.jpg vs Image:SearsTower.jpg -- BenMiller 23:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• I prefer the orthogonal version, myself. However, it does look like it was squashed a little in the process. I wonder if we can fix that to make it look more like it really looks orthogonally. --Quasipalm 16:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• If somone wants to create a better orthogonal version, that's fine with me, although I'd argue that if that's what we want, an illustration would be better than a photo. I don't have the software to do it, and until/unless someone does, I'd like to change the picture back. Currently users get the Sears Tower as seen in a funhouse mirror. BenMiller 19:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I really think the current photo needs to be changed. It is too long and it screws up the formatting. I think we could find a better main picture. Take a look at Image:Sears Tower ss.jpg it cleans every thing up and is also nice shot of the building. Ryan J Pasch 00:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Is this image better? Image:2004-08-16 800x2400 chicago sears tower.jpg Speciate 23:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Petronas Towers

Please, stop changing the building that surpasses the Sears Tower as the world's tallest as the Petronas Towers. If you read the infobox, it clearly states that it is talking about highest habitable structure by roof-top, by which account the sears tower is clearly taller. --Quasipalm 22:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The only problem is that is not the standard for deciding the world's tallest building. The official standard set by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat states that the official manner of declaring the world's tallest building is to the architectural top not the roof-top. Under this the Petronas Towers are taller and should be listed. If you need backup you can look at the page about the tallest building in the world or I will gladly give you multiple sources that back up my opinion including a book written by the CTBUH. Aausterm 21:55, February 20, 2007 (CT)

...But it says the Sears Tower's top is 527m, and the Petronas Towers' is 452...?

I noticed that too and am now thoroughly confused. Every instance of the statistics being given clearly states that the Sears Tower is 527m/442m and the Petronas Towers are 452m/379m. The Sears Tower is obviously taller. If some criterium other than height determines the world's tallest building (which would make absolutely NO sense) this definitely needs clarification. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have replied at Talk:Petronas Twin Towers#Statistical inconsistancies re: Sears Tower. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

terror threat

I added a little section about the terror threat. It is not much.

Either it can be completely removed (i followed the be bold policy) or it can be expanded by others.

Regardless as to whether or not the section stays, I really think the reference to Oplan Bojinka should stay (as it shows the importance of this building and the risk) and the same has now been done with the US Bank building in LA after president Bush's statement about the foiled hijacking plan.

Evilbu 21:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not thrilled about adding a "Terror threat" section to every major landmark in the US. Earlier today I added "however some counter-terrorism experts have expressed doubt that the plot was ever fully developed or likely to occur" to US Bank Tower after reading a report in the LA Times. I guess my concern is that these "foiled terror plots" are so politically charged that it's hard to tell what's fact and what's political fiction. --Quasipalm 21:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll refrain from childishness so I will not just put it back on again as it seems I have a majority against me. But still I'd like to point out that what I said (regardless of whether or not it is true or implies that it was gonna happen if authorities didn't intervene) is backed up by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oplan_Bojinka Evilbu 22:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It says that was a possible plan. I have possible plans too, but they never got close to executing that part of the plan. I don't think we need to be told that the tallest building in the hemisphere is an "important building". --Golbez 22:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Floor Space / Window Space ratio

I reverted a short edit made by Redneb regarding floor space / window space. Not only did the edit go against all the research I had ever seen about smaller floor sizes having more availible window space for smaller tenant firms, but I worked out the math:

• Floors 1-49 have 56.25 square feet of floor space per linear foot of window space.
• Floors 50-65 have 43.75.
• Floors 66-89 have 31.23.
• Floors 90-110 have 25 square feet of floor space per linear foot of window space.

As the floors go up, the amount of window space increases relative to the decrease in floor size. If anything, the article should be edited to reflect this. Gws57 16:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I clearly had my ratio flipped around- so please revert back, with flipped ratio (Higher Window/Floor Space). Thanks. Redneb 19:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. How do you like it? Gws57 22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Windows broken in windstorm?

I remember that in March of 1988, a bunch of the window glass on the top floors broke due to some kind of freak windstorm, causing the glass to fall to the street. I remember this because I was in town then, and the top floors of the building looked intredibly post-apocalyptic. But I can't find any articles that describe why and how this happened. Anyone have any ideas? Jkonrath 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I was living there at the time and, while I was only ten, I remember that too. What you're suggesting would be kind of difficult. The best way to do it would be to try to remember what month this happened, and then get access to an archive of one of the local papers (the Chicago Tribune or the or the Chicago Sun-Times} to see if they wrote about it - I'm sure both of them did. Then cite that article in WP.Azlib77 11:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

i had a look for an article using Google News Arcive search engine, and there were some articles about that particular event, but all the articles require you to pay money to veiw them. 203.129.44.56 11:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Rendering

This page is not rendering well with my browser Firefox 1.5.0.3. The picture of the building in the history section has content text behind it.

June 22, 2006 Arrests

An enterprising unregisterd, 67.22.216.150, added information on the June 22, 2006 arrest of seven men charged with plotting to bomb the Sears Tower as well as the FBI building in Miami. This resulted in the resurrection of the "terrorist target" subheading, which I don't object to as it now appears to have been a terrorist target. At any rate, I cleaned up and clarified some of their information, marked it as a current event, and started this topic to discuss anything related to these arrests. --jonny-mt 04:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about every possible terror target in America getting a section on terror. I'm thinking of the "uncovered plot" to destroy the US Bank Tower in LA. First off, there seems to be little evidence that these people were ever capable of doing anything beyond taking pictures and bragging to friends about their plots. Secondly, there is main stream speculation that these sorts of stories pop up as part of political theater. Thoughts? -Quasipalm 15:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

They talked to an FBI informant about purchasing guns, bombs, and other assorted Weapons of Building Destruction. Sounds like they were pretty serious to me; they just got cut off in the early stages. Obviously this news story is very good for the Bush administration, but speculation is not criteria for section deletion. Supadawg (talk • contribs) 22:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

CN Tower comparison

I don't get this comparison in the article:

"For comparison, Toronto's CN Tower, built in 1976, cost around the equivalent of US$260 million in 2005 dollars."

These are two very different structures i don't see the correlation between the two in terms of cost comparisons. one is an office building the other a telecommunications tower/toursit attraction. Duhon

Black nationalist reference

132.241.246.63 (talk · contribs) insists the men were Black nationalists. Where is this found? I don't want to violate WP:3RR, but this element of this incident seems to have eluded me. - CobaltBlueTony

X - bracing

In the article, I read the following:

"One-story high black bands appear on the tower around the 30th–32nd, 64th–65th, 88th–89th, and 106th–107th floors. These allow ventilation for service equipment and obscure the tower's diagonal "X" bracing, which Sears Roebuck did not want to be visible."

I am quite familiar with the black bands; they are part of the structure's distinctive look. But the reason given here strikes me as nonsensical. How could widely spaced horizontal bands obscure large "X" bracing? Look at the Hancock. Try to imagine how horizontal bands could be used to cover that up. I suspect it was a silly comment inserted by someone who heard something from who knows where. I will not delete it now, but will do so without a cite in the near future. Unschool 16:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I had never seen that fact cited anywhere else, it seems plausible. The diagonal bracing is not large like the Hancock's, it just occurs in 2-story bands around the mechanical floors which you can see if you look closely at the building at the right time. Montalto 18:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I can see that as possible. I'd still like a cite; I've spent lots of time in its shadow, been up it many times, but have never myself noticed this, let alone heard this explanation. Unschool 06:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the bracing you are refering to is properly known as a belt truss. Belt truses improve stability from wind loads placed on many high-rise buildings. The belt trusses used in Sears Tower integrated well with the skyscraper's already tightly spaced grid of vertical members (columns) and horizontal members (spandrels). The most notable example of this structural element being used to augment the aesthetics of a skyscraper is Milwaukee’s First Wisconsin Center. --Rkrause 20:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Notes

The Sears Tower also has the most total floor space of any commercial building in the United States, and second-most overall to The Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia. One-story high black bands appear on the tower around the 30th–32nd, 64th–65th, 88th–89th, and 106th–107th floors. These allow ventilation for service equipment and obscure the tower's diagonal "X" bracing,[citation needed] which Sears Roebuck did not want to be visible.

First, Sears is not the largest commercial building in the US. That goes to another building in the same city- The Merchandise Mart. Secondly, the bracing is visible so I doubt that visibility was the reason for the black panels. They could just be large spandrel panels or louvers. That information should be cited from a primary source. Please cite, edit or I will remove in two days.

I also can't believe that nothing was said about the building's innovative "bundled-tube" structural system. Gary Joseph 01:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually Sears Tower's gross floor area (which I gather had been calculated based on the BOMA standard) is well known to be 4.5 million square feet. I do not know how this compares to the Merchandise Mart, since all published material about that building does not distinguish between whether its 4.2 million square feet is really gross floor area or useable floor area. --Rkrause 20:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, louvres were installed at the mechanical floors to obscure the belt trusses that surround the building. The only exception is on the 88th and 89th floors where tinted windows are also present. I cannot recall where I read this; it was likely in one of my Sears Tower books. --Rkrause 20:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Actual number of stories

I would not necessary trust Emporis Buildings on this measurement. Some of their Sears Tower "facts" seem to be more questionable than based on truth. They explain that the number of stories is 110 only including the "elevator box". It should be noted that the two-story penthouse on Sears Tower is actually for housing the robotic window washers and it is also an integral part of the structure. (You will notice that they don't even mention this particular marvel of Sears Tower despite of its technological innovation). This brings the total number of above-ground physical floors to 110. --Rkrause 21:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the standard method of counting floors in a building ignores the mechanical penthouse. Based on blueprint readings taken by Emporis editors, the tower only has 108 floors. Yes, the mechanical penthouse is an integral part of the structure and is included in the height, but you would have to change the floor count for the vast majority of buildings if you wanted to revise the rule. And this is not a forum for discussing what Emporis includes in its facts. Try e-mailing that website if you have something to contribute. Montalto 22:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of there existed a "rule" for counting floors in a building. (The very notion that a penthouse can be excluded only substantiates that this is an extra-ordinarily subjective method of measurement and I would not be surprised if it was the result of more fallacies purported again by the infamous CTBUH). If penthouses are to be excluded, then all mechanical floors should be excluded as a "rule" since they do not contribute to useable square footage. But regardless, since it seems that most "floor count" reverts to this page are being substantiated by the Emporis database, then this is the best place to discuss the matter. Wikipedia should cite information that is verifiable and reputable, and is of a neutral point of view. If a source is questionable then it should be brought up by editors for discussion, not dismissed as irrelavent so that only one point of view and one source can be trusted. Since Emporis makes its own claim that contradicts what the official Sears Tower Website (as well as hundreds of books, newspaper articles, journals, and magazines continue to claim to date), then that one controversial figure should not be the only information provided to readers. --Rkrause 03:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The way I interpret Wikipedia's policy, the way to maintain neutrality is to use official sources ("no original research"), and the CTBUH is the closest you can come to an official source on building measurements. The Council is an organization of building professionals including engineers, architects, contractors, and building product vendors, so it represents a wide array of professional viewpoints. I don't know where your "infamous" qualification comes from; you are entitled to say it but Wikipedia aims to avoid this kind of POV. As for Emporis, its contributors are the only people compiling any serious statistics or doing significant research into building measurements, and two years ago the CTBUH adopted the Emporis database as its own official source of building data. I have said before that Emporis' data is not 100% accurate, and its editors will admit it; however they seem to try to use the best sources available on a subject that is notoriously difficult to research because they have to investigate building by building. However, they keep track of their sources so they can always tell you when they know something for sure and when they don't. With regard to the Sears Tower, you can find out from Emporis (if you communicate directly with them) the exact height of any floor in the building. The mechanical penthouse on top is 18 feet, 6.5 inches tall, and the blueprints show it starting at floor 109 with the very top roof being 110. Even if you wanted to count the penthouse, the building would only be 109 floors, which still contradicts the Sears Skydeck website and all those publications you referred to. As a member of the Skyscraperpage.com forum I can assert that I have never seen anyone insist on the inclusion of mechanical penthouses in the floor count, and if you talk to someone who lives in an 8-story building with a mechanical penthouse for a 9th floor, 99% of the time he will tell you it's an 8-story building. So I don't see the controversy. A lot of myths are propagated over the years in the media, and the idea that the Sears Tower had 110 floors is one of them unless someone can prove that the mechanical floors inside are divided differently from the way the blueprints suggest. I think it is better for Wikipedia to blow the myth (citing 1 or 2 outside sources) than to tow the old line simply because more sources do so.

You seem to have some good engineering knowledge yourself (based on your mention of belt trusses in yesterday's edits) and I appreciate your contribution in that regard. I didn't mean to try to silence you in my post above, I merely objected to your implication that Emporis was unreliable because it neglected to mention one interesting fact. Montalto 04:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

TV skyline shot triva

Since September 11th, 2001, many shots of the city's skyline (mainly on television) tend to not include the Sears Tower due to fears of it being targeted.

I added a citation needed tag, but this sounds pretty much ridiculous to me. I'm in favor of simply removing it if nobody can source this claim. gavindow 23:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

on oprah they have it

Height of Top Floor

The infobox lists the tower's height at the top floor as 1,354 feet. There are 108 floors. The Skydeck is on the 103rd floor at 1,353 feet. How can there be 5 floors covering only 1 foot? Does anyone have an explanation?--Chaz 00:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That's gotta be some kind of a mistake. The official site lists the height as 1,450 without the antennae, and 1,725 with it. Aha, looking at the page, I see the discrepancy -- those five floors aren't open except for maintenence reasons, I think, which is why the height of the top floor is listed as only 1,354. -- gavindow 07:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That's true. It just seems odd that it would be listed that way. --Chaz 15:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Original Sears Tower

What about the original Sears Tower?

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=searsmerchandisebuildingtower-chicago-il-usa

Is there anything on Wikipedia about it?

--Kalmia 01:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess not. I better make a page. --Kalmia 04:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How can it be shorter than Taipei 101 with more floors?

Tapei is taller but has 9 less stories, more head space? Are there stories you can't stand up in?

The floors are larger on the 101, plus it has a spire. Judge for yourself. Soakologist 22:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the skyscraper height rankings are noting but a joke. The graphic illustrates it nicely. What's the point of the spire/antenna distinction anyways? But, hey, we're just writing about it, not making up new rules. --Dschwen 14:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV statement?

Sears, Roebuck deteriorated as market share slipped away, and management grew paranoid and introverted through the 1970s. Is that the truth, or does it use words that have emotional connotations? Arius Maximus 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Top three tallest buildings (Taipei 101, Petronas twins, Sears Tower)

Hola,

ok so like this is the way i think about it. why on everything else((like the buildings)) they count the antennas, but on the sears tower they dont count it at all? that is not only retarded but ridiculous! i think that the sears tower like any other tower, should have its antennas counted. why is it this way??? please give me some feed-back! -71.36.49.42 01:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This talk page isn't supposed to feature talk about the building itself, but the article. Wikipedia is only informing about this, so why don't you e-mail the big guys who decided this in the first place? - Aki 22:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

They were talking about the article, since both in the infobox, the main body, and the side-by-side illustration all make it perfectly clear that the Sears Tower is taller than the building that succeeded it as the "world's tallest building". I see no reason for wikipedia to unquestioningly side with these "big guys" of whom you speak. In fact, it's ridiculous to call something the world's tallest building when you're actually talking about it being the tallest "fully habitable, self-supported, from main entrance to highest structural or architectural top" structure. Also, so how about that Sears Tower? Anyone ever been to the top? I bet the view's awesome! Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Usage?

What is the building used for? Does anyone know? - Aki 22:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a commercial office building with a couple of retail stores and restaurants on the lower levels. Greetings from the 47th floor! CanadianMist 18:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't has Sears Tower! It's Chicago's.

Fact

it leans 6 inches to the west acoring to the architect 202.156.12.11 10:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Height

Please do not use this article to pass on frustrations on the loss of the towers supremacy in height. The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat has only ONE category that determines "world's tallest building". All the others are additional information gathered on the tallest ones (height to antennae, etc.) Stop f-ing around and get the facts from the Council's website and ameliorate frustrations by other means. (It is amazing that so much space is devoted to height, but nothing about its innovate structural system.)People throughout this world depend on the information here, so GET IT RIGHT!!Gary Joseph 21:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Count the antennae as spires and the ruckus ends? Haha. Keep fighting the good fight Gary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.59.178 (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead problem

The Sears Tower is a supertall skyscraper in Chicago, Illinois, and the tallest building in the United States since 1973, surpassing the World Trade Center. By all other measures (official height, roof height, and highest occupied floor) the Sears Tower was always taller than the World Trade Center.

All measures other than what? TheHYPO

"World's Tallest Building"

I was just wondering as to why the Petronas Towers and Taipei 101 were ranked above the Sears Tower as the "World's Tallest Building". The Sears Towers' top is 527m, the Petronas Towers' is 452m, and the Taipei 101's is 509m, so shouldn't the Sears Tower be above both of those? Unless of course we were referring to top floor height or roof height, which in either case, the Sears Tower would still be above the Petronas Towers although it would fall short of Taipei 101. But yet it is ranked 3rd, so could someone explain this to me? Thank you.

Spires count. Antennae don't. Burj Dubai is set to beat them all anyway, so soon we won't have to deal with any of this. see: List of tallest buildings and structures in the world TheHYPO 06:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Spires count. Antennae don't." Typical b.s. excuse. It's either part of the building or it is not, jack@$$. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.59.178 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha. You clearly have never dropped by a skyscraper forum. :-P That's how the official recognition works. There are free-standing broadcasting towers far taller than any building ever constructed; you bcould build a house around one of those and claim to have the tallest building if antennae counted. But by all means, feel free to petition the appropriate authorities to have this changed if you like. :) -AndromedaRoach (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

how i ........... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.171.60.254 (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

South Riverside Plaza

• http://www.ubs.com/1/e/investors/agm.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.193.11 (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lightening

In the "Statistics" section, some added a comment that the building gets struck by lightening 5000 times per year. That is clearly incorrect. An earlier revision stated 300 to 500 times per year, but provided no citation. I deleted the entire line. If someone can find the true data for that stat, please add it back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martylunsford (talk • contribs) 18:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo Gallery?

I looked at some other buildings and memorials such as the gateway arch and they have photo galleries so I was wondering if anybody other than me thinks that the Sears tower should have a photo gallery. So maybe we could start a Photo gellery I'm just asking for opinions I don't have many good pictures but if somebody else does you could start a Photo gallery and put your photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.250.148 (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We already have one: Commons:Category:Sears Tower. Generally speaking it is best to keep galleries out of articles themselves, otherwise we end up with articles that are more pictures than text. —Jeremy (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

contradictions in belt truss floors

If I read this correctly, the article states that there are belt trusses spanning floors 29-32, 64-65, 88-89, and 104-109. According to Emporis, there should be floors extending above each belt. For instance, the north, east, and south sections raise to 90 floors (according to Emporis), but going by this article, they should only be 89 stories tall. ataricom (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

???

Is the sears tower really the tallest building in the world? --70.238.6.139 (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not any more. See article for further info. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

observation deck

i was wondering, would the observation deck in Sears tower be taller than the Las Vegas Stratosphere or Tower of the Americas in San Antonio, TX? 129.120.103.3 (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ace Combat

How can the Sears Tower be in a game that doesn't occur on Earth, or at least not our Earth? The game has a completely different geography and political layout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.139.161.72 (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming Controversy

I feel it should be at least noted the controversial nature of the up coming name change. It has become a pretty big issue in Chicago with many people feeling that it is sort of like attacking a land mark. Ive heard comparisons drawn that it is like if some one renamed the Statue of Liberty the Loyd's of London Statue. There has been a lot of media coverage of local out rage over this change. If no one disagrees with me I plan on making the addition some time in the near future. 131.230.146.135 (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I very much feel there should be a section on this. In general almost every Chicagoan is laughing at this concept, and it seems as if NO one will actually call it the willis tower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.244.181 (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sears abandoned it. Why should they still get the free advertising? And if Lloyd's of London were to buy the Statue of Liberty, why shouldn't they call it the Lloyd's of London Statue? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Because things have names, and those names matter to people. It will NEVER be the Willis Tower to those who love Chicago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.69.167 (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Its name is Willis Tower now and the page should reflect that. A section on the controversy would fit in fine. Either way ignoring the new name is a stupid idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.8.214 (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This page should be "Sears Tower", you can make a new page for "Willis Tower" for the building from 2009 - on —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theige (talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Move

Guys, the news hit today. It's all future tense. Willis Group WILL move in. Sears WILL be renamed. I hate to get involved in a move war, but the cycle is be bold, revert, discuss. I'm reverting. Until we can find some evidence of this change having actually happened, it shouldn't be moved, nor should links be changed. --Golbez (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are reverting too far back. This [edit is referenced in proper tense http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sears_Tower&oldid=276752992]. I'm not crazy about getting involved in an revert war so am backing off the article but the Willis name needs to be in the lead. Americasroof (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Americasroof. Willis needs to be in the lead sentence, and nothing more. Hopefully they change their minds about this. Another chicago icon bites the dust. Comiskey Park, Marshall Field, now this. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Has been made official now. I have changed the name World (talk • contributions) 01:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your source? According to the article, the change wasn't supposed to happen yet. DarkAudit (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

ABC news made it official, also I think CNN. I heard it on ABC news. CHeck the sites World (talk • contributions) 01:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at some article on ABC which said that the change ould occur this summer. The fact that the name would chnage was made official today World (talk • contributions) 01:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

WHEN the name becomes official, I believe we should move it then. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The name should reflect common usage in English. If most people start calling it something different, then it should be moved, but not the day it's renamed. Wikipedia titles aren't determined by official names. Dekimasuよ! 06:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

While some residents of Chicagoland will continue to call Willis Tower Sears Tower, Willis Tower will become the official name of the building, and I believe this will be, on a global scale, the widely accepted name that is used, especially by mapping services like Google Maps. However, I don't know how we will develop a criteria to determine which name is the widely accepted one. We may have a situation where the maps and written literature refer to the tower as Willis Tower while people in ordinary speech, especially people in the Chicagoland area, refer to the tower as Sears Tower. I think, since we have three months to do this, we should develop some sort of criteria specific for this evaluation. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that this isn't an isolated case. Renaming events happen all the time, and pages are almost always left at the old name for a significant length of time until common use--as illustrated by things like news sources and Google Scholar--adapt the new title. See Talk:Bangalore, Talk:Blackwater Worldwide, Talk:Kiev/Naming, etc. As for what to do if Chicagoans continue to call it one thing and maps call it another, we have Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names. So I think a system to evaluate things is already in place, although the end result will probably be a move request at WP:RM. Dekimasuよ! 07:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

While there is a generic rule set on Wikipedia, how does that specifically apply for Sears (Willis) Tower? What questions should we ask to determine which name is the widely used name? Should it be search rankings on Google, should it be what a map calls the tower? (I think both of those criteria are fairly poor in this case) I have a feeling that in three or six months there will be a big debate over whether to rename this article and I think we should begin having the discussion now, not so much move or don't move, but specifically what specific criteria do we evaluate to determine which name is widely used? I tried searching yesterday to find out any naming conventions for buildings, and the closest thing I saw were naming conventions for geographic places. On a side note, Mumbai is an example of an article that is named for its current name, even though many people still call the city Bombay. JustGettingItRight (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The argument, of course, being what most people call it, not what many people call it. The governments of English speaking nations like the United States and India itself call the city "Mumbai". Native speakers of Gujarati and Marathi call it "Mumbai". "Mumbai, India" gets over 5600 Google News hits (inc. BBC, Times of India, Reuters, AFP, CNN) while "Bombay, India" gets 144 (most hits are in Spanish, but there's a smattering from the Kalamazoo Gazette, Modern Ghana, Wakefield Observer, etc.). "Mumbai, India" outnumbers "Bombay, India" on Google Scholar over the last 10 years (since the name change), and in the last few years the ratio has changed from 1:1 to 5:1. So there is evidence of a trend, and a majority in favor of the new name. If someone can show those two things here at some point, I'm sure the page will be moved. Dekimasuよ! 06:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It is NOT the Willis Tower yet. You tweakers need to stop jumping the gun, and change the opening sentence back. 68.73.93.130 (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a great blog in the Chicago Tribune that should help the Wikipedia community in its decision making process for renaming or not renaming this article in the future. A couple of main takeaways I got were that initially there is a lot of resistance to a name change, but over time a name change is accepted. Willis we always call it the Sears Tower? No, we won't JustGettingItRight (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And if you read the comments, you;ll find that the resistance is not just initial and that despite what Zorn says, the name change is frequently not accepted. While I'll continue to call it the Sears Tower, I do like the suggestion that following the name change it be nicknamed "Big Willie." Shsilver (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We use the current name on Wikipedia for all of the examples that Zorn gives, though most of the name changes he cites are at least a few years old. From what I gather from the news, the general feeling in Chicagoland is extremely negative to the renaming, and I think that may be the basis for some of the comments on the blog. However, I don't think that when we determine which name is widely accepted, the audience should just be Chicagoland. My guess is we will eventually have to rename this article. The question is going to be, will we do it when the name change becomes official or will we do it at some later point. JustGettingItRight (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to make a move, there are plenty of buildings that aren't called by there official names, like the Gherkin, Canry Warf, in England or Library Tower in LA. Companies come and go and I expect we'll have to follow wikipedia guidelines when referring to the Sears tower. Also JustGettingItRight generally people say Chicago when referring to the metropolitan area rather than Chicagoland (which is only used by the media and advertisers). Astuishin ^(talk) 21:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I gather that you're not from Chicagoland otherwise you'd know that everywhere throughout Chicagoland people refer to the Chicago metro area as Chicagoland. Of course we never use Chicagoland when speaking to people not from Chicagoland, because only people from Chicagoland know what it means. 68.73.93.130 (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And oh, yeah, expect great resistance to this in Chicagoland; everyone above the age of 30 still calls that big white building on Randolph the Standard Oil Building, and that was at least two name changes ago. 68.73.93.130 (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a life long chicagoan and i've heard very few people use the term, Chicagoland. In fact most people find it a little annoying if not condescending. I agree with you about Big Stan though. Astuishin ^(talk) 10:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think the general convention is to use the official name being currently used. But if the building is destroyed for any reason (demolished, etc) then call it by its most popular name. That's what we do for stadiums. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Once the name change becomes official, move it to Willis Tower and Sears Tower will be a redirect. Sears can't keep trading on something they abandoned. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The name of the Pan Am Building in New York City was changed to the MetLife Building after Pan American Airlines went out of business in 1991. I'll always think of it as the Pan Am building, but I don't think I could get a taxi to take me to "the Pan Am building" today. Get used to the new name, folks. --CliffC (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I rather doubt most cabbies in Chicago could get you to the Willis tower today either. Googlemeister (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There are actually a lot of Wikipedia pages where the most commonly used name is given preference over the official name when it comes to the title. Triborough Bridge rather than Robert F. Kennedy Bridge; Sixth Avenue instead of Avenue of the Americas; West Side Highway over the Joe DiMaggio Highway; Empire State Plaza not the Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza; the New York State Thruway instead of the Governor Thomas E. Dewey Thruway. Based on those precedents the page move to Willis Tower may have been overhasty. 69.106.74.227 (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are different. Those are colloquial names vs lengthy official names; this is a short official name. The colloquial names are used because things predate official names but also because they're shorter. --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find where the length of the name was ever a rationale for choosing what to title one of these things on Wikipedia. At the Triborough Bridge page, where I was tipped off to the others, the discussion was framed entirely on "most common name" status. I also think it's a red herring for nearly all of these, since nothing would prevent RFK Bridge, the DiMaggio Highway, or the Dewey Thruway from becoming the most common names, they just haven't. We call RFK Stadium Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium, so if the renaming of Triborough had caught on with the public I do not see how long or short official names would be a pertinent issue.69.106.75.105 (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 69.106.75.105; WP:COMMONNAMES makes no mention of discriminating based on the length of the name of an article topic. The official name is not always what the article should be titled. Since "Sears Tower" is still the clear common name, I agree that this move was a bit too hasty. Cheers, Rai•me 02:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What do the Ivory Coast, Bombay, and the Sears Tower all have in common? They were officially renamed and Wikipedia took the new name. --Golbez (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

But unlike the Sears Tower, the articles for Ivory Coast and Bombay were not moved overnight without discussion. Both were officially renamed before Wikipedia existed, and by the time their articles were written, the official names had been long established and very common. That is not the case here. Cheers, Rai•me 04:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I made an incorrect argument above; citing 'colloquial vs long standard'. I realized the other thing those things have in common - they're all government structures. When the 'government' (which is us, right?) changes the name of something away from its established name, the people (i.e. the government?) tend not to care about the official name. But in this case, the owners of a building have changed its name. We recognize private name changes like Joybubbles and Aon Center (Chicago) and US Bank Tower, why not this? What makes this special? Basically, it is inaccurate to call this building the Sears Tower. You might get away with that if "Sears Tower" were a name granted to it by the people and local culture, but it wasn't. It was the official name of a structure, and now it is not. --Golbez (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAMES also makes no discrimination based on "government structures" and "private structures." It isn't inaccurate to call a thing by its common name; it is a Wikipedia naming convention. Perhaps the cases with the aforementioned items should have been more closely examined, but that doesn't change the fact that this article was moved too quickly. Sears Tower may have been the official name, but I would argue that it was and is a name held "by the people and local culture", considering the uproar the name change has caused. What makes this special? The name "Sears Tower" was associated with the tallest building in the US, a former tallest building in the world, and American culture in general for over 30 years. So, this move is more significant than that of the U.S. Bank Tower - I would guess that rename did not make international news. Cheers, Rai•me 15:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of nickname?

Assuming it becomes official and sourced, would the new nickname be properly spelled "Big Willy" or "Big Willie"? An quick search of Google finds

"a man's willy"  – 527
"a man's willie" –  36

but of course per WP:GOOGLE that's only a popularity test and wouldn't be citable as proof of a "correct" spelling. --CliffC (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If it became official and sourced, then they would pick the spelling. :) --Golbez (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sears v. Willis

It strikes me that when referring to historical periods, the name Sears should still be used. Examples include mention that the building (then known as Sears) was tallest from 1974-1998, or the note that "In an episode of the television series, Monk, Adrian Monk tries to conquer his fear of heights by imagining that he is on top of Willis Tower." since it was called the Sears Tower at the time the episode was films and within the episode. Shsilver (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree, just like the rename of a city, we use the name of the city at the time of an incident. It'll have to be done carefully so as to be consistent, though, and right now with all the editing, it might be difficult to make those edits stick. This is the tallest building ever renamed, so we have a more complex list of changes to make. --Golbez (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree. We also need to take into account that while Sears Tower is no longer the official name, it remains the most common name; readers unfamiliar with the name change are likely to be confused if any and all mentions of "Sears Tower" are switched to "Willis Tower." Cheers, Rai•me 15:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, it would make a hash of history to retcon Willis onto historical references to the Sears Tower. Ships change names all the time for example, but nobody would alter references to the CSS Stonewall during the American Civil War into Japanese ironclad Kōtetsu. We call the Byzantine Empire's imperial capital Constantinople, not its present name Istanbul. 69.106.74.227 (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The building is best known as the Sears Tower; the page should have been left under that name with the other redirecting to it. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah really. It's the Sears Tower. Changing it to Willis is just a disgrace to Chicago culture. Just keep it as Sears Tower on here. --24.13.44.207 (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Guideline needed I have just started a discussion at the Manual of Style regarding a similar situation. I would appreciate input there on my particular query, and I think that if it doesn't already exist a guideline for project-wide re-namings of buildings, towns, etc. should be created, although I am not sure exactly where within the project namespace it should go. Sswonk (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Common name is lovely, when it's not inaccurate. Calling this "Sears Tower" is inaccurate. --Golbez (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

An official name is not the only measure of what is accurate. Cheers, Rai•me 20:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. For example, both "Samuel Clemens" and "Mark Twain" are accurate monikers for a particular author. If he had changed his name, however - and not simply used a pseudonym - it would be inaccurate to call him by the previous name, even if that's the "common name". My name is Andrew; many people know me by that. That doesn't make it right then, if I were to change my name to Mike, while Andrew might be my 'popularly known as', it is incorrect. It's not like this is an exonym granted by decades of linguistic evolution, like English names for foreign cities which, while inaccurate in the local tongues, are perfectly fine in English. This was a name chosen by the owners, and now it has been changed. --Golbez (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If the majority of people know the building what was formerly named the "Sears Tower" as the "Sears Tower", then it is still an accurate name, whether the building owners regard it as incorrect or not. Burma is officially the "Union of Myanmar", but the name "Burma" is neither an inaccurate nor an incorrect name in English so long as the majority of English-speaking people still refer to the country as "Burma". Cheers, Rai•me 01:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I strongly opposed the move of Myanmar to Burma. --Golbez (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You're not going to find appropriate sources still calling it "Sears Tower". And why should Sears get any free benefit, anyway? They abandoned it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't about Sears "getting credit" - it is about using the name that people will will be most familiar with. And note that even the Skydeck website and Emporis still call it the "Sears Tower." I'm not advocating for a move back to "Sears Tower", but I do think this move was carried out too quickly and without discussion. Cheers, Rai•me 01:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are advertising websites that haven't gotten around to posting the new name. Advertising sites are questionable encyclopedic sources. Legitimate news sources are most likely to use the new name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It is very likely that legitimate news sources would use both names - the official one and the one that readers would be more familiar with. But, I guess we won't know until news sources about the tower unrelated to the name change are released. Cheers, Rai•me 14:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't advocate a move back then when should it have been moved? How exactly would you be able to tell when Willis surpassed Sears as the common name, if ever? Also, generally, for a single move, discussion isn't required. --Golbez (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This move was clearly controversial given the number of editors expressing disagreement here, so a requested move would have been appropriate. If the end result was consensus to rename the article, then the page should have been moved then. Cheers, Rai•me 14:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Skydeck

The page is locked, so I can't correct:

In January 2009, the Skydeck began a major renovation including the installation of "glass balconies" extending approximately four feet over Wacker Drive from the 103rd floor.

Bad sentence structure. Sounds like the balconies are four feet over the street. Make sure modifying words are modifying the correct words. Should read this:

In January 2009, the Skydeck began a major renovation including the installation of "glass balconies", approximately four feet in width, extending over Wacker Drive from the 103rd floor.

-- 97.113.116.173 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the pictures from the skydeck are from CNN and Chicago Tibune and have no source info on the photo files. They are apparently copyrighted, and should be replaced by free images. I'm in Seattle, or I would go up and do it myself. -- 97.113.116.173 (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I just nominated the images for speedy deletion. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers, Rai•me 21:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be moved back to Sears Tower

Policy is quite clear here: "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article." Sears Tower is the common name, whatever you may say to the contrary. Sears Tower has 2.2 million google hits; Willis Tower has less than 500,000. Sears Tower has 1,137 google books hits, Willis Tower has 55. Finally, should there be any doubt about current usage: Sears Tower has 1,241 google news hits for the last month; Willis tower has 876.

In other words, both common usage and the vast majority of reliable, published secondary sources call this the Sears Tower. Given that Wikipedia is supposed to follow the usage of the reliable sources, there is no reason to make an exception here.

• Support move as above. Empire NJ (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose move - It is not called the Sears Tower anymore. It was changed recently, so Google hits are not reliable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's entirely irrelevant. Uruguay is officially the "Oriental Republic of Uruguay", but the article is still at Uruguay because that's what most people call it. Furthermore, even if you look at GNEWS hits for just the last day (and we are now well after the so-called change), then Sears Tower still beats out Willis Tower by a sizable margin. Anyone who reads the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun Times will tell you that both of those papers are still referring to the Sears Tower. I'll reiterate that what matters is published, reliable sources. Those sources by a great majority say Sears Tower. Empire NJ (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You're making general statements. I'd like to see a reliable source, since the renaming, that still calls it Sears Tower as if the name had not been changed. Google hits do not qualify as a reliable source. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright then. Have a half dozen. There are plenty more where these came from.

1. From the San Francisco Chronicle on July 19, three days after the rename, an article on the Tower that makes absolutely no mention of the Willis name, referring only to the Sears Tower. [2]
2. From Building (a leading British architecture magazine), an article on July 20 which also makes no mention of the Willis name. [3]
3. From the Chicago Tribune on July 17, " the Sears Tower gets renamed something no one older than 39 will ever call it" no mention of what that name is, just that no one will use it. [4]
4. From the Dallas Morning News, "but everyone still called it the Sears Tower. And they won't stop now." [5]
5. From Reuters, "So while the signs say “Willis Tower,” the lips in Chicago are likely to keep saying “Sears Tower” for a long, long time."
6. From Business Week, "the CEO of Willis knows people will still call it the Sears Tower" [6]
7. From the BBC, "Public relations experts said it could take decades for the new name of the Chicago skyscraper to take its place in the public consciousness." (emphasis mine) [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empire NJ (talk • contribs) 16:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So it was renamed just 6 days ago, and you're arguing it should be moved back because many still call it the Sears Tower? What you've cited is either sources that didn't get the news yet, or speculation that people will continue to call it by its old name. 6 days ago? Check back in a year and see how it's going. I'm sure when they renamed Comiskey Park II to U.S. Cellular, it didn't catch on right away, either. But guess which name it's listed under. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you just have no idea what it means for something to be verifiable in reliable sources? I think it's pretty interesting that you think that several of the largest newspapers in America "haven't gotten the news yet." Here are the facts: The vast majority of reliable sources call it the Sears Tower. No one calls it the Willis Tower. You're speculating that in a year, people will. What is appropriate is to call it by the name people are using. If in a year people start to call it Willis tower and the newspapers, travel guides, magazines, etc. do the same then a rename would be appropriate. For the time being, we should stick with the name supported by both common usage and reliable sources. Empire NJ (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources say its name is Willis Tower, and by an amazing coincidence, that's what its name is. Opinions on what the average citizen will do are strictly that - opinions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, beware: You are a 1-day-new user who appears to be on a crusade to try to keep the old name as if it were the real name of the building. Be careful not to get into an edit war over it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, any official source will almost certainly use both names to describe the building, because "Sears" remains the common name. If many people don't know what the "Willis Tower" is, which seems to be the case, then the news article would not be helpful without also including the more recognizable name. Check back in a year and see how it's going - that is not how naming conventions work. We can check back in a year and see if Willis is more common than Sears, and move the article then if it appears that that is the case. For now, the more common name is "Sears Tower," and that should be used as the title of the article. Cheers, Rai•me 16:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I would expect sources to say "Willis Tower, formerly Sears Tower" for some time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that is indicative of the "Sears" name being more common. If Willis were truly were more common, then there would not need to be a mention for the Sears name. Once sources start calling it solely the "Willis Tower", that may be an indication of the common name having changed. For now, that isn't the case. Cheers, Rai•me 16:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

More common this week, maybe. How many people are calling Dolphins Stadium by its new name? How many even know about it? Yet the article was moved to its official name. "B formerly A" is necessary for those who didn't know about this 6-day-old name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that other articles were moved quickly doesn't relate to this discussion; a.k.a., this article doesn't need to be at an official name simply because a stadium was also moved to an official name. There are precedents for moving immediately to the official name, and there are precedents like Burma that stick with a common name long after an official name change. In this case, we definitely should follow WP:COMMONNAME, which suggests that "Sears Tower" be the article name. Cheers, Rai•me 17:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a redlink, a brand new user, who appears to be on a crusade. I'm thinking he wants to move it back to Sears as a self-fulfilling citation, "See, wikipedia still calls it Sears." We had a similar discussion all winter about Yankee Stadium. The argument was that everyone would think of the old Yankee Stadium as "the" Yankee Stadium. Guess what: people adapt quickly. Yankee Stadium means the new one. Trying to move the article back after only 6 days after it was renamed is flat-out POV-pushing, based on nothing but cherry-picked citations speculating that people will continue to call it by its old name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is not an official move proposal; it should be done through WP:RM. Cheers, Rai•me 15:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

How do I do that? Empire NJ (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a potentially controversial single-page move. Basically, just create a new section (or in this case, reformat this section along the line of:

==Requested move==
{{subst:move|Sears Tower}} A brief reason as to why the name of the page should be changed. ~~~~

Then, add {{moveheader|section=Requested move}} to the top of this page. Cheers, Rai•me 15:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Willis Tower → Sears Tower — WP:COMMONNAMES is emphatically clear: "Title an article using the most common English language name of a person or thing that is the subject of the article." It is also emphatically clear that the majority of people and the majority of published, reliable sources call this the Sears Tower. Since the "renaming" last week, news stories have been published in the major media referring to the tower as if no rename had taken place (including the San Francisco Chronicle, the British architecture magazine Building, and the Chicago Tribune. A google search, google book search, google news search, or google scholar search turns up significantly more coverage for the Sears Tower than the Willis Tower (even a GNEWS search for stories only in the last week or day). News sources from the BBC to the Dallas Morning News state unequivocally that no one will be using this "new" name. In short, articles must be named by the common name and the Sears Tower is the common name. Opponents of the move will state that people are going to start calling it the Willis tower. This is pure crystal ballery. If in a year, the reliable sources and common usage refer to this as the Willis Tower, a move to Willis Tower would be appropriate at that time. Empire NJ (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It was SIX DAYS AGO. Show me a source that isn't speculation or for whom the news has arrived but they are not using it yet. Naturally, the Chicago papers are going to be more on top of the story than outlying papers. Find a reliable poll as to what people are "commonly" calling it, rather than newspaper editorial speculation, which is meaningless here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If they were to actually conduct such a poll, I think you'd be surprised at the number of Chicagoans who (1) hadn't heard about it; and/or (2) couldn't care less about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think that the San Francisco Chronicle is several days behind the rest of the world? Show me one source that shows people calling the Willis Tower. Every travel guide in the world calls it the Sears Tower. Multiple full-length books calling it the Sears Tower have been published [8] [9] [10]. You seem to think that just because they changed what's painted on the front this has all changed. It hasn't. Not one reliable source shows any significant group of people calling this the Willis Tower. Empire NJ (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

ONLY SIX DAYS Web pages don't necessarily change overnight. I saw a quote from the mayor of Chicago saying he's just fine with the name change. He's people. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, people refers to more than one person. Empire NJ (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You've apparently never dealt with Mayor Daley. ;) Kevin Forsyth (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Printed travel guides and books, how many still showing pictures and details on tours of WTC were still on shelves six days after the attacks? That is an extremely misguided way to justify a change back to Sears. Sswonk (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Move was premature and overhasty. No evidence that "Willis Tower" is the common name, and the articles referenced by Empire NJ above do indicate that "Sears" is the common name, at least for now. A good precedent to use is 555 California Street - the article remained at its older name, "Bank of America Center", for over two years after it was officially renamed, but has since been moved to the official name after several sources were provided that indicated the older name was no longer the common name. Cheers, Rai•me 17:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose – Speaking of crystal ballery, what is relying on multiple sources that speculate using phases like "no one older than 39 will ever", "but everyone still called it the Sears Tower. And they won't stop now.", "the lips in Chicago are likely to keep saying “Sears Tower” for a long, long time.", "the CEO of Willis knows people will still call it the Sears Tower", "it could take decades for the new name of the Chicago skyscraper to take its place". All of these are guesses about the future, they can't be fact. To me, it's the same thing only less supported by guidelines to use the "Sears Tower" name because a lot of weasel worded comments from columnists, etc. think they know how the future ends up. Sswonk (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  Sears Tower may not be the common name for 10 years into the future; we don't know. But now, and only now, Google hits and articles from reliable sources both indicate that "Sears Tower" is the more common name. We don't need to make any guesses about the future; all that matters is the present, and in the present, "Sears Tower" is more common. Cheers, Rai•me 17:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  They may be wrong about whether or not the name will change in the future. The fact is that common usage has NOT changed, at least yet. Wikipedia should reflect whatever is presently supported by the reliable sources not what we think/hope will be supported by common usage and reliable sources in ten years, ten months, ten days, or ten hours. Empire NJ (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  Google hits are absolutely NOT considered reliable sources for this kind of information, and citations for what people are still calling it is pure speculation and is thus also not reliable sourcing. Its name has been changed, and that fact is reliably sourced. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  Again, how do Google hits count after only six days? Every mention of the building before the naming rights were announced by Willis, over 35 years of published material, is not going to mention Willis Tower. The rest will mention both names for a while, so Sears gets another "hit" to add to those 35 years worth. Not at all logically or mathematically relevant use of that method to establish a common name of something. Sswonk (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  A reader is hundreds of times more likely to come across the "Sears Tower" name in printed resources and the internet, so he/she is far more likely to recognize the Sears name over Willis. That is certainly a logical method to establish a common name. Rai•me 22:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: The building has a new name; WP should reflect it. There's no danger of confusion, thanks to the redirect from Sears Tower and to the mention of "Sears Tower" in the article's lead. As for reliable sources that use the new name, here's the Associated Press, producer of a large proportion of U.S.-based news reports and publisher of the style guide used by most American newspapers, happily using Willis Tower as the building's primary name: [11]. PRRfan (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• That reference is just like all the others - the fact that "Sears" is still mentioned indicates that "Willis" is not the most common name. If "Willis" were the common name, then "Sears" wouldn't need to be present in the article. Cheers, Rai•me 17:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's unlike the others in that it illustrates a clear change in usage by one of the primary style determiners in the media (read: reliable source) universe. Certainly, AP's use of "formerly known as Sears Tower" acknowledges that many readers will not yet know the new name; just as clearly, it shows that the tower will henceforth be called by it. PRRfan (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It only illustrates a clear change in the official name, which isn't in dispute. You are interpreting it to mean that "Willis" is also the common name, but that is completely unsupported by the article. Cheers, Rai•me 18:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The name Sears Tower is iconic, and ubiquitous. It's like trying to rename the Brooklyn bridge, or Yankee Stadium. 199.125.109.58 (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  Something that has never happened and likely never will. Speculation. Sswonk (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - common name cannot trump accuracy. To call it "Sears Tower", however common, is now inaccurate. I would like to request the proponents of this move to indicate how it could be proven that "Willis" ever overtakes "Sears". Google results? Newspapers? A hunch? --Golbez (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, to start, when news sources stop saying "formerly known as the Sears Tower". I do believe that Willis will one day become the common name, but it isn't now. Cheers, Rai•me 18:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Which news sources? How many? How do you quantify it? Or does it really just come down to a hunch that it's time to move it? --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• It comes down to building consensus, as every move does. If this article is moved back to Sears, and in one week, one month, or one year another editor wants to move it back to "Willis", then another move discussion can be started, news sources can be presented, and editors can build consensus on which name is more common. The keys are discussion and building consensus, which were both overlooked in the move to "Willis Tower". Cheers, Rai•me 18:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is a guideline. Verifiability is a policy. The name of the tower has verifiably been changed. Some journalists speculating that people might not adjust to the name change is not verifiable proof of a common name. —Jeremy (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Point of order. It seems, reading above, that the initial move to Willis Tower was carried out without anything resembling a discussion or a consensus to move. Thus, procedurally it seems that this should be moved back to Sears Towers immediately. If people want to move to Willis Tower, then they face the responsibility to establish a consensus to do so. This should never have been here in the first place. Empire NJ (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Per WP:BOLD there is no stipulation to seek permission before making changes to Wikipedia. —Jeremy (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Alrighty then, I would like to exercise the Revert portion of BRD. I tried before, but seem to have moved wrong. Will someone tell me how to move back to Sears Tower so as to complete part two of BRD? Thanks. Empire NJ (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Reverts don't happen a week after the fact. They happen immediately. I linked you to the move procedure; I strongly urge you not to do it. --Golbez (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
      • We are already in the Discuss portion of BRD. To move the article this early in a discussion about the move would be discourteous to those wishing to engage in the discussion and appear to be an attempt to railroad the discussion. —Jeremy (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
        • And just to let folks who weren't paying attention know, Empire NJ already did a copy-paste move to the old name about 25 minutes ago, claiming that after 2 hours of discussion, a clear consensus had emerged. I don't think I need to point out all the errors made there. --Golbez (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As Jeremy said, you don't need consensus to make an initial/original edit or a move. Nor do you need it to revert. Repeating the process, though, does require consensus. If there was a challenge then it could have been made at the time; the move reverted, an RM opened. It was not. So this is the new base situation we deal with. There's clearly valid points on both sides which were apparently not expressed fully before the last move; that's what this is for. Also, to be frank, you have no grounding to speak on anything about procedures, having violated multiple ones in just the last 20 minutes. --Golbez (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Well I wasn't aware of the need to revert at the time. You're not really making much sense though. Why does the 6 days this has been named Willis Tower trump the YEARS that the article was at Sears Tower? Empire NJ (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I have no further way of explaining it to you. If you move it, I will move it back. And then we can have our happy D part of the BRD cycle. Would that work? Or how about this: Skip the move war and just discuss the situation. Eight years, 6 days, surely we can wait more than two hours to discuss where it should be. --Golbez (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree that we should discuss this further, but I do believe that while we do so, the article should be at Sears Tower. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree and I'm not going to waste my time moving it if you'll just move it back. Perhaps this discussion will benefit from some more opinions as other people see the page. Empire NJ (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm no philosophy expert, but I believe what you are saying there is an odd form of begging the question, that is you are assuming an outcome of an argument in it's premise. Or something like that. All I can say is making an RM and then making the move shortly thereafter to bolster your argument is not unlike a cop saying "I think we should arrest this guy", asking the DA if there is probable cause and then making the arrest without having a response from the DA. Why ask the DA in the first place, unless you really want to make him mad? Sswonk (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
            • • Quite to the contrary, to work with your analogy. It's more like if a Cop knows a guy has done something wrong, but has not yet been convicted in court. You hold him in jail until the proceedings are over. What I'm saying is that given that this was moved without consensus, it should be moved back unless a consensus to move it is established. Empire NJ (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Actually, it's more like the train has left the station. You might have chosen a different route earlier, but now we're all riding the Move Request Discussion Express -- next stop, consensus. PRRfan (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• CALL IT THE SEARS TOWER. That's what it is. Save the Sears (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC) — Save the Sears (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose move to Sears Tower. WP:COMMONNAMES was not written with this type of situation in mind, and I don't see it as applicable here. A local concert venue, the Oak Mountain Amphitheater, was renamed the Verizon Wireless Music Center a few years back. Local columnists and radio shows started petitions and on-air protests proclaiming that nobody would ever use the new name. Fast forward two years, and I have been corrected more than once when saying "I'm going to see XYZ at the Oak Mountain Amphitheater tonight". Names change, and there will always be those of us who continue to use the old name simply out of habit more than anything else, but that doesn't mean the new name isn't correct (or that it will not become common usage). This structure has been officially renamed, and our article's title should reflect that. --auburnpilot's sock 19:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If I were able to amend my previous statement of opposition to the move with any single thought posted since, this statement by AuburnPilot would be it. There is an element of common sense that is missing in the strict interpretation of WP:COMMONNAMES used by the nom. That guideline is not meant to cover a recent change like this unless it were an obvious case of frivolity. It is primarily about things or people with multiple established names where one name has prevailed over time. Place name changes that are official, legal and not likely to be undone like this one are factual and given precedence over sentimental favorites. Sswonk (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, I'm afraid. It's a real shame the tower's name has changed but it definitely has, so Wikipedia must change too. - Pointillist (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Willis got the naming rights as part of their lease and chose to name the building Willis Tower. End of story. Nothing prevents us as individuals from thinking of it and referring to it as Sears Tower, whether for sentimental reasons of out of force of habit, but that's no longer the correct name. One early version of the lede started with "Willis Tower, formerly known as Sears Tower, is...". That is a straightforward and correct way to inform readers about both names immediately. All the "popularly known as" claims belong in the body of the article. --CliffC (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • There is a substantial precedent for calling this by the common name, not the official name. The most obvious example is Burma. Although the country is technically the Union of Myanmar, it is known in the english-speaking world as Burma and so we use that name. So far as buildings go, there is also ample precedent. For example, the article. 40 Wall Street. Officially, this is the Trump Building, but historically and in common usage, it is known as 40 Wall Street, thus we use that name. Empire NJ (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Poor choice; the address is always a valid moniker, in that case both Trump Building and 40 Wall St are valid, accurate names. --Golbez (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Another tower. We have an article named John Hancock Tower when in fact the official name is Hancock Place. So, in other words, yes WP:COMMONNAME applies to buildings.Empire NJ (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps that article should be moved then, though at least "John Hancock Tower" is still using the same nomenclature as the official name, what with the "Hancock" at all. It's not quite as different as Sears vs Willis. --Golbez (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
      • The Hancock Tower is another bad example. Disclaiming WP:OR in advance, I have lived in the Boston area for over 15 years and this is the first time I can recall having heard the name Hancock Place, maybe once or twice before I'm not sure. Learn something new... The company that owned it defaulted in March, but it is still listed in their portfolio here (other assets changed hands today, [12] so that page may disappear soon) as the John Hancock Tower. So, there may be a reason to move the article whenever a new owner decides on a name, but none now. However, with Willis Tower the name change is a highly public one. The mayor of Chicago is famously in support of it. And, the company with the right to call it what it wants calls it Willis Tower. Sswonk (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think there was ever any real consensus to move Myanmar to Burma. That debate went to the mediation cabal, and people are still arguing about it. I'd personally prefer Myanmar, since I'm pretty sure all the atlases and almanacs I've ever owned have listed the country that way, or as Myanmar (Burma). But I digress... Zagalejo^^^ 02:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• (outdent) Very partial list of other towers/significant buildings that we don't use the official name of. You can help by expanding it.
  • Oriental Pearl Tower - the Chinese name literally translates as Oriental Pearl TV Tower but in both China and the english-speaking world the word TV is generally omitted, so we left it out of the title.
  • Kuala Lumpur Tower - the official name is "Menara Kuala Lumpur" but we go with the common usage (Menara is the name of the company that owns the tower)
  • West Pearl Tower - officially 四川广播电视塔, the "Sichuan TV Tower", a name not even mentioned in the article.
• There are, I am sure, many more, but this is what I have found so far. None of these, of course, are exact parallels, but the Kuala Lumpur Tower is pretty close. The general public has rejected the corporate naming as "Menara Kuala Lumpur" and we have named the article accordingly with the common name. Empire NJ (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Sears Tower is by far the more common name and was used for almost 40+ years, WP:COMMONNAME supports Sears Tower. End of Story. Eventually it could possible be more known as Willis Tower, but no sane person could say it's better known now as that. This isn't like an arena that gets its name changed every few years, the building became an icon under the name Sears Tower while I would bet most people outside of the Chicago area aren't even aware that its name has changed. TJ Spyke 21:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support REVERT back to Sears Tower. Per WP:COMMONNAME. If and when the tower is more commonly referred to as something else, that's when this article should be moved, and not before then. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:COMMONNAME —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 00:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Should we also move Cloud Gate to The Bean? (I'm not trying to be snotty; I'm genuinely curious how you and others interpret WP:COMMONNAME.) Zagalejo^^^ 02:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely, we should move Cloud Gate to the Bean. I've lived in Chicago for years, and while I was vaguely conscious that "the bean" wasn't the official name, I would have had no idea what someone was talking about if they said "Where is Cloud Gate?". It's the Bean, end of story, just like it's Jimmy Carter not James Earl Carter, Jr. Empire NJ (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• You continue to pick horrible examples to defend your position. Not only is that nickname very similar to the actual name, but it's a nickname for a person. Jimmy <->James is extremely commonplace, middle names are often dropped, as are suffixes. Furthermore, he chose/endorsed that nickname! As for Cloud Gate vs The Bean, it seems a little insulting to the creator/owner/resident of something to tell them that their name for their item isn't the real one. The artist created Cloud Gate; that the people are ignorant of that is no excuse for us to be ignorant of it. --Golbez (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• To quote Ann Tickner, "You just don't understand." What we call something should have absolutely nothing to do with what its owner/naming rights owner/artist wants to call it. It's about what the public calls it. That's why we have an article named Whistler's Mother, not "Arrangement in Grey and Black: The Artist's Mother" because that's what people call it. That's why we have an article on Burma not the Union of Myanmar. What James Whistler or the ruling junta of Burma wants is utterly irrelevant. We don't have an article on Jimmy Carter because that's what he wanted people to call him; it's because that's what people did call him. Empire NJ (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough on the Whistler's Mother bit; you finally found a good example. I wouldn't propose moving that article away from Whistler's Mother. However, that is something 140 years old; the public consciousness literally knows it as nothing else. To rename it would be to confuse every viewer of the site. This, however? This obviously is a notable change that people know about. If Chicagalinos are or choose to be ignorant of it, that's not our problem. As for Burma, that's not why the article is there, but the Myanmar/Burma issue is an entirely different discussion. (East Timor would be a better example. But what about Ivory Coast?) Finally, we're dealing with a name change here. Whistler's Mother wasn't a new name or an old name or any name; it was simply the name the public knows it by. If this building never had a name - was simply '233 S Wacker' - for the last 35 years, and then Sears moved in and declared, "We're renaming it the Sears Tower!" - I would support moving it to the new name, rather than keep it at the old name, because that was less a name and more an identifier. Am I being pedantic? Maybe. But my position remains - *I* can see the difference but it's perhaps hard for me to communicate what that difference is. I could say, "The public consciousness created the name out of thin air" for Whistler's Mother, but then you could use that againse me in the case of The Bean... but it doesn't work for the Sears Tower. The public didn't invent that name. They'll get over it. As for Jimmy Carter, that's also what he called himself. That has nothing to do with the public or nicknames or anything. He filed to run for office under that name. --Golbez (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. People adapt to name changes surprisingly quickly. Peking or Bombay anyone? Aubergine (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That's just your assumption. At the moment, people are clearly calling it the Sears Tower. In a year, if they call it Willis Tower rename it then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empire NJ (talk • contribs) 16:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Golbez. Sears Tower simply is not accurate anymore. Zagalejo^^^ 02:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In what sense is it not "accurate"? It's the most commonly recognized name just like Whistler's Mother. Surely, the "official" name should be mentioned but it shouldn't be the article title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empire NJ (talk • contribs) 16:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • "Sears Tower" has no official standing anymore. The people who own the building's naming rights call it Willis Tower. The only reasons for anyone to continue calling it Sears Tower are force of habit, ignorance, or sentimentality. Whistler's Mother is a special situation, since people have been calling it that for over a hundred years, despite knowledge of Whistler's own title for it. If, in 100 years, people are still calling Willis Tower "Sears Tower", then maybe we should start considering a name change. But who knows what the future will bring. Zagalejo^^^ 19:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Zagalejo. Aubergine also brings up a very good point... At some point in time, the name "Willis Tower" will become more commonly used. Why don't we speed up that process? --timsdad ^(talk) 06:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Let's speed up that process" violates the very core of Wikipedia. We are supposed to only provide information published in reliable sources; reflect the world, not change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empire NJ (talk • contribs) 16:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose reverting to Sears Tower. As far as guidelines go, WP:COMMONNAME is not specific, but WP:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names is: "Is it the official current name of the subject?" (emphasis added) In fact, WP:COMMONNAME appears to defer to this guideline when it says, "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication". Regarding the examples of common-name usage cited by Empire NJ, such as Oriental Pearl Tower, Kuala Lumpur Tower, and Menara Kuala Lumpur, that editor makes a stronger case for changing the names of those articles than for reverting this one.

Many — including myself — consider this to be an asinine, money-grubbing decision by building management to change the name of an icon; but change it they have, and it's not our place as Wikipedians to argue against that change. That said, I'll call it Sears Tower until the day I die, just as I do with the Standard Oil Building — but I won't feign confusion if a tourist asks me how to get to Willis Tower or the Aon Center. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well the policy you cite above refers specifically to naming article to avoid POV; there isn't really an NPOV problem here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empire NJ (talk • contribs) 16:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. Nothing personal, but the passion with which some people are resisting this change strikes me as very POV. Kevin Forsyth (talk)

Comment: The statements by Forsyth and auburnpilot, and my second of auburn, clearly state the primary flaw in this nomination, which is the claim that a move from Willis Tower to Sears Tower is supported by a guideline phrase where "WP:COMMONNAMES is emphatically clear" about this issue. Pulling a single sentence from the lead when that sentence has paragraphs of explanation following which cover multiple scenarios can be misleading, which I think has been the result here. In continuing to staunchly support the move, the nominator has also used arguments which have been repeatedly and effectively rebutted. This discussion is about a move, but parallels to a deletion discussion can be drawn when one looks at the noms arguments and sees similar arguments listed as arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, including reliance on Google hits to determine what title to use, and comparing this article's title to those of other articles in an illogical way which is akin to the What about X? line of reasoning that is discouraged as well. Please don't immediately shoot back at me saying "This is a move, not a deletion!". I know that, but for the sake of brevity and lacking a similar ATA essay for moves, I am pointing to a place where refutations of these two rationales have been established for some time and are relevant here, in spite of the fact that those refutations are currently applied to a different discussion forum. Sswonk (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Example - in my previous hometown of Charlotte, there was a building named 1 First Union Center. Tallest in the city for 4 years, 2nd tallest for 15. And 2 First Union, and 3 First Union. (4 First Union was supposed to be a supertall but I digress) There was also a building in Charlotte named Wachovia Center. One day, First Union bought Wachovia and took its name. What to do with the buildings downtown? The First Union complex - all of which was taller than Wachovia Center - was renamed Wachovia. 1 Wachovia Center, 2 Wachovia Center, 3 Wachovia Center. The old Wachovia Center simply reverted to its street address, 400 South Tryon. So far as I know, not one person in Charlotte clinged to the old name of 1 First Union. The ownership changed, the name changed, and we moved on. Is the Sears Tower more special than these? Of course. But it's not immune. This is the tallest building ever to be renamed; the next tallest was, well, its friend a few blocks away: Aon Center née the Amoco Building née the Standard Oil Building. Last I checked, while some people were stubborn (I personally prefer to call it Amoco), the change was made and accepted, and no one has ever questioned - so far as I can tell - where the Wikipedia article belongs. That's a good example to follow, I think. --Golbez (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please Note. While those requesting a move have engaged in forum shopping and the like, the point of order raised above is valid. The page should not have been moved in the first place without a consensus, as those moving it should have known quite well that doing so would be controversial. It is technically more or less impossible for those without administrator tools to carry out the R of BRD, so I have moved the page back. I do not mean for this to prejudice the discussion of the final name in one way or another, but it did seem appropriate for this to remain at Sears Tower until the discussion runs its course. I also urge all editors, particularly Empire NJ, to refrain from edit warring within the article itself, as this seems to have been occurring. Cool3 (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Why do you say the move couldn't be reverted? So far as I know, Sears Tower only existed as a redirect, which can be moved on to. That kind of obviates your entire argument here. I won't move it back - move wars are the worst we can have - but your premise seems seriously damaged. Also, what discussion? This RM is now obsolete. A new RM needs to be opened now, the previous discussion goes out the window. --Golbez (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• There were multiple lines in the page history; an ordinary user can only move over a redirect with a one line page history. Thus, it did require administrator tools to move. Cool3 (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, yes, there were; made a week after the fact. If someone wished to revert it within the week before Empire NJ performed his copy-paste move, they were able to. But I misunderstood you; I thought you were saying that right after the move, it needed an admin to move it back. --Golbez (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• I also will not move war with you. But if any move was out of process it was the move you just made, which has completely thrown the above discussion off the rails. The person who originally moved it from Sears to Willis did so entirely within Wikipedia's policies; no prior discussion was required. Your reversion of this move has no basis in any policy--BRD is an essay, and even it states "Do not accept "Policy" , "consensus", or "procedure" as valid reasons for a revert" —Jeremy (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please Note that nearly every project outside the English Wikipedia has accepted Willis Tower as the proper title. Sswonk (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

  True, but most of those moves were initiated by a single user (Aubergine), so it doesn't really reflect any international-opinions that we can apply here. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

  I think that the moves at the 25+ other projects have gone unchallenged and that articles have been edited since then at these other projects does, at least, suggest that the move is non-controversial outside English Wikipedia. Really, whether Aubergine did many of the moves or not, the key words in my statement are "accepted Willis Tower as the proper title", and to embellish those words, without batting an eye. It would be nice if we could do the same. So, not applying international opinions, just making note of the fact that the rest of the world has moved on. Sswonk (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note - I have moved this back to Willis Tower following a notice posted at WP:AN/I. This is not to be interpreted as some kind of "administrative endorsement" of this title but was done so to prevent disruption to the ongoing move request. It should remain at this title until the close of this discussion. Thank you, Shereth 20:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Some notes/links I found whilst perusing these discussions: Naming rights (no mention of this there, yet), Lancaster Park (interesting tactic in lede sentence), Seahawks Stadium#Stadium contracts (note that's a redirect, the page is actually located at Qwest Field). Also, try searching Wikipedia for stadium rename or building rename for many more examples to argue over ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Most of the articles I find in Google News that came after the renaming call it the Willis Tower and mention that it used to be called the Sears Tower. This Chicago Tribune article calls it the Willis Tower without even bothering to mention that it was the Sears Tower (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-talk-highest-pizza-delivery-jul23,0,7580771.story). No one can seriously believe news sources are going to keep calling it the Sears Tower even though that is no longer its name; that's just wishful thinking by people who don't like the change. Rnb (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per are you out of your freaking minds? in the last week, 1786 hits on Google News for Willis Tower. Now tell me that reliable sources are not calling it that. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, wait until we can get some perspective on whether the "Sears" name will hold strong in about a year or so. Then we can have this discussion. It's only been a few days, people. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 01:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Pretty obviously Sears Tower is the common name, it is pure crystall ballery to suggest Willis Tower will become the common name so change it now, and there are a million and one examples where we do not slavishly name things after their official name regardless. Hell, we don't even do it for some living people. MickMacNee (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • After Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammad Ali, a lot of people resisted calling him by his new name. Howard Cosell was an early adapter, and eventually his new chosen name became used universally. The crystal ballery is the assumption that people will continue to call it Sears Tower, when in fact there is no source given that can demonstrate that. It's pure sentimentalism, and trying to abuse wikipedia to "protest" the name change. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't need a source to back up my statement that 'it will become known as the Willis Tower in the future so rename it now' is predicting the future, something we do not do. Its the common name right now. Whether it will be the common name in the future, is a matter for the future. Who knows, maybe the financial crisis will see Willis Group go under or be taken over within 15 years, you just don't know. It took a couple of years at least before anyone accepted nonsense like Snickers, if we have to start plucking comparisons out of thin air. MickMacNee (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Find a valid source that demonstrates that "Sears Tower" is its current name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
        • If you tell me where I said it wasn't. MickMacNee (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support The landmark of Chicago has been known "Sears Tower" for a long time. Think about the case of Burma and Myanmar.--Caspian blue 08:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That is a bogus comparison. The Willis company purchased the naming rights through legal means, not through a military coup. And why should Sears continue to get free advertising, when they abandoned the place? This is all about sentimentalism. There is no reliable source backing the idea of keeping it at Sears Tower. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't be rude, Baseball Bugs. Just because I don't agree with your crusade for changing the established recognition on the old name, that does not mean you can be freely away from WP:CIVILITY. How do you know that I have "sentimentalism" toward the place? More over, you said No reliable source backing the idea? Did you forget already what you said above? You said "Google hits" are meaningless at this point because you are exactly aware of the fact that the new naming is not widely known to the public and not established. You are indeed the one who resorts to "bogus" arguments. I did not mention the military coup of the state at all. Not every states in the world do not follow the political stance of the U.S. The naming is also a matter of "recognition".--Caspian blue 14:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Trying to keep a no-longer-valid name is an abuse of wikipedia guidelines. That "common names" guideline is for when the name is unclear. An example would be the plane landing in the Hudson river in January. The media called it the Miracle on the Hudson, but there were objections to it on the grounds that it was "not a true miracle", whatever that means. I think a bland, factual title was settled upon. But that's what the "common names" guideline is about. There is no such thing as the Sears Tower anymore, except in the minds of a few sentimentalists. Anytime something is renamed, it can take awhile for the new name to gain full circulation. The original editor who pushed for retaining the old name is trying to abuse wikipedia, to make this article into a "protest" against the new name. That is not wikipedia's place to do. The reliable sources call it Willis Tower, or "Big Willie", and that's what it is. There is no more Sears Tower. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Regarding Google, there are hundreds of thousands of hits on "Willis Tower", so it's hardly unknown at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move polling at 48 hours

This is a list of the !votes in this requested move discussion provided as an arbitrary breakpoint. The participants are listed as preferring either Sears Tower or Willis Tower as the name of the article, not of the structure itself:

Sears Tower (supported) (9): Empire NJ (nominator) • Raime • 199.125.109.58 • Save the Sears • TJ Spyke • Born2cycle • TonyTheTiger • MickMacNee • Caspian blue

Willis Tower (opposed) (15): Baseball Bugs • Sswonk • PRRfan • Golbez • JeremyA • AuburnPiIot • Pointillist • CliffC • Aubergine • Zagalejo • Timsdad • Kevin Forsyth • Rnb • Who then was a gentleman? • CrazyInSane

To avoid controversies, rather than changing these results please address any requests to fix mistakes in them to me. This line is the end of the 48 hours polling results, additional entries go below. Sswonk (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose moving back to "Sears Tower", the name of the tower has changed, to have it at the old name is potentially misleading. Now if someone types in Sears Tower thinking it is still the name they are immediately informed of the change - essential for understanding most of the article. Guest9999 (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support moving back to "Sears Tower". It's dumb that a couple of lawyers can rewrite history like this. It's the Sears freakin' tower. And it always will be, regardless if one tenant got naming writes and wants to call it the Willis tower for the next decade. The name hasn't changed for most people. Go ask anyone in Chicago what it's called. A hundred years from now, it will still be the g'damn Sears tower. This is an encyclopedia not a fuckin' court room. -71.194.135.16 (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WGN-TV news

Tonight they were talking about the Willis Tower, and its possible attraction of new business. Not once did they say "Sears Tower", but they did call it "Big Willie". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Normally, when a landmark or other popular thing is renamed, it is uncontroversial, so the Wiki article is moved to the new title. In this case, however, it is certainly controversial so we will have some opposition. I do not feel that WP:COMMONNAME covers cases like these, because we've not had adequate time to figure out whether or not Willis Tower will become the common name or not. IMO, we need to leave the namesake at Willis Tower with "Sears Tower" mentioned clearly in the lead. If, in a year or so, most sources still refer to the tower as "Sears", we can debate moving it back to "Sears Tower". — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 02:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I was most amused that they called it "Big Willie" (or maybe "Willy", [as in Free Willy]) since that nickname didn't appear on-screen - only several quick shots of the words "Willis Tower" outside the building). The double-meaning of that term in British English is probably lost on the American audience (or maybe not), but I have a hunch that's the name that's going to catch on. It's only been 7-8 days. A year? It shouldn't take nearly that long. It would be interesting to start counting up Google hits every week or so, since the sentimentalist here tried to make something of that, only 6 days after the renaming. WGN, which is available on many cable systems, will probably aid in spreading the word about the new name. Tom Skilling's weathercast, showing the Chicago skyline, also made a point of calling it Willis Tower. No Sears to be heard. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Presumably there's a subtle distinction between calling it just "Big Willie" vs. "the Big Willie". The later, I'm sure, will gain some street-slang usage. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

On Google just now, I type in "willis tower" chicago, and got 615,000 hits. "willis tower" by itself got 486,000 hits. "big willie" chicago, got 22,700 hits. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)