Talk:Willis Tower

---

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

Sears Tower

"Sears Tower was the world's tallest building from 1974 to 1998.[I]"

I do not understand why the article says this??? If it was offically the Sears Tower until this year why did some dumb person change this to the Willis Tower?? The Willis tower did not exist in 1974 to 1998. Please unlock and fix this error. All Chicagoans still call it the Sears Tower anyways. Really the title of the article should be "Sears Tower (officially Willis Tower)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.88.173 (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The caption you are speaking of is automatically filled in by the {{Infobox Skyscraper}} template based on what is typed in the |building_name parameter. While "Sears Tower" may be more correct in this historical context, the caption can't be changed unless the template syntax is altered. Cheers, Rai•me 04:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to edit the template, it is correct as stands see below. Sswonk (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't saying the template should be edited, only that in order for the "Sears" name to appear the syntax would have to be changed. Rai•me 04:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And I was just trying to avoid the possibility that someone would respond to you with "Well, then the template should be changed." If they read our comments, they should see that it is correct as it stands, so we should be all set now. Sswonk (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article is using the {{Infobox skyscraper}}. When a building was formerly the world's tallest, the text you are questioning is automatically generated by the Infobox coding and uses the article title in the automatic text. It is correct as it stands because it is using the past tense in the context of the infobox which shows the current name and information. This is different from historical references in the article text, where it is written using "Sears Tower" to describe events at the time they occurred. Sswonk (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes across other articles could call this building "Willis Tower (Sears Tower)" if that is helpful, no? I agree that the article title should reflect the current name (this sort of thing happens frequently with large commercial buildings), but I can only hope to remember that references to "Willis Tower" in places other than this article mean "Sears Tower" as reflected in historical references. The automated process really ought to be able to handle such a cross-reference, but if not, perhaps the individual infoboxes can be edited as appropriate? Steveozone (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries change definitions based on how people use the words. Most people still call this building the Sears Tower. Its legal name is Willis Tower, but that should not change how it is labeled in Wikipedia. At least, when a person searches for Sears Tower, they should be directed to a page about the Sears Tower and not re-directed to the Willis Tower page. The Sears Tower deserves its own page seperate from the Willis Tower. Wikipedia is a website for and by the people. The foreign corporation that bought the legal naming rights should not dictate how Americans refer to their buildings. This site should begin by stating that the "Willis Tower used to legally be called the Sears Tower. However it is still known as the Sears Tower." The name Willis should not be used again in the rest of the article. Architect8 (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we've been over this. The people chose to rename. Also, separate page? For the same building? No. --Golbez (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I was working on a research project on Sub-Saharan Africa when I was reading an article on the Carlton Centre, and was confused by a comparison that the "Carlton Tower was half the height of the "Willis Tower". Clicking on "Willis Tower" revealed that it was in fact referring to the Sears Tower, its most widely known and upheld name. I agree that the article's title should have Willis Tower in it, even though "Willis Tower (Sears Tower)" would be much more accurate and therefore what Wikipedia strives to achieve; however, having it referred as "Willis Tower" (and just that) in other articles is confusing and inaccurate. Hopefully, although not likely, the mention in the Carlton Centre article was a rare case. The status quo is not acceptable, and please, "we've been over this" is never an acceptable response to an argument, especially on Wikipedia. Your say, and that of others, is never the final say. The article should be renamed in order to reflect its popularly known name, the Sears Tower, as well as its official name "The Willis Tower". It should also be made clear that in other articles the "Willis Tower" should also be reffered to as the "Sears Tower" concurrently with its official name. Please reassure me that Wikipedia has not been overcome by pedagogues. -- AJ24 (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Request automatic archiving

Protocol suggests making a request to other editors before setting up automatic archiving of an article talk page, so that't what this is. With stray comments being added to older topics here from time to time, especially about the name of the building, I think it would be wise to set up automatic archiving to move threads that are seven days old or older into the archives, starting with a new "Archive 3" page. The bot will start a new archive page whenever the current one reaches 150K in size. Here is the code:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Talk:Willis Tower/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 3
|maxarchivesize = 150K
}}

The archive box at the top of the page will have to be adjusted slightly to keep up with this, and helped along by moving the "Move" archive to "Archive 2" so the archives will have names the bots and templates can understand. Regular editors, please briefly comment below. Unless there is substantial debate, objection, etc. then I will set this up tomorrow morning to begin then. Sswonk (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done The automatic archiving is now configured as shown. The "/Move" links redirect to "/Archive 2" so nothing else needs to be changed. Sswonk (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The /Move archive should stay where it is, and shouldn't get mixed up with general archiving. It's useful to retain it as a separate record, and is something that's done elsewhere. It's not helpful to have random topics archived onto the bottom of it. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a separate record, /Archive 2, and the /Move title was redirected to it to ensure that links would continue to work. New archiving begins with Archive 3. Your further efforts, without discussion, to disrupt this page have been reported to WP:AN/I. Sswonk (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this really worth AN/I drama? I can't see any great difference between these two systems - in both cases there's a separate page for the move, and in both cases new discussions after the move will be on a new page. It's a very minor and very cosmetic difference that is not worth arguing over, as far as I can see. ~ mazca ^talk 17:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, you tell me. I need to avoid dealing with this editor directly beyond this point. User:SarekOfVulcan has fixed the issues thanks to my notification of admins, but continued unilateral behavior of this sort, placement of db-move tags etc. needs to be addressed as a disruptive incident. My proposal of automatic archiving was done properly, no one objected, and then after the operations to set up automatic archiving were completed, 81.110.104.91 abused the db tag and made multiple edits to disrupt the process. Combined with other actions and statements from the past, seems like an incident to me. Sswonk (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I will agree that {{db-move}} without discussion was a bad idea; and would suggest 81.xxx tries to get consensus in future... I'm just not seeing the evidence of major disruption you seem to be seeing. We now have auto-archive set up in a reasonable way, so I would basically suggest the solution to this is for both of you to stop doing anything to do with archiving this talk page! It should be a fairly trivial janitorial task, and if it's causing anyone stress then they should probably focus their efforts elsewhere. :) ~ mazca ^talk 17:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mazca, why should I have stop having anything to do with it when I set it up to begin? If 81.110.104.91 keeps hands off, then nothing will need to be done. But I have direct knowledge of how it was proposed and configured. Via your direction, the only way I will be able to correct further edits that unilaterally change things without discussion is to notify an admin and wait. I am not interested in doing anything other than keeping the discussions clear and current. Your direction suggests that I did something wrong. Sswonk (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It was intended to do no such thing. In my view, both you and 81.xxx are taking all aspects of the archiving of this talk page entirely too seriously and too personally; and my suggestion was intended to defuse conflict without confrontation, and save you both some stress. If you genuinely think that you, personally, must be involved with the archiving of this talk page for it to be successful then I don't intend to force you to stop - but I'd encourage you to think about how important the specifics of one talk page's archiving really are. It's really up to you - I don't think anyone's behaviour, let alone yours, has got bad enough here to warrant actually restricting anyone. ~ mazca ^talk 17:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. If there's no other talk being archived to it, and there's at least a prominent link at the top, then that seems fine. I find it funny that yet again "incorrect" and "unilateral" are being used as euphemisms for "stuff I don't agree with" and "without asking me". 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? You folks are arguing over archiving? --Golbez (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

More accurately, User:Sswonk kicked up a stink because they weren't happy with the way things were. Note the gigantic and needlessly personal whines above. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, just 7 days leaves insufficient time for discussions to take place. 30 or 60 would be much better. Astronaut (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not 7 days from the start of a discussion, it's 7 days since the last comment was made. If a discussion is idle for a week, it's over. --Golbez (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

... but some people who might wish to comment are just not that active on Wikipedia. There really is no rush to whisk discussions away into an archive so quickly. Astronaut (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

United Airlines Operations center

I see no mention of United renting out a significant portion of the tower for their Operations Control Center. Surely it should be mentioned seeing as how they'll be the largest tenant in the tower. Yes, beating out Willis. Maybe it should be renamed the United Tower? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.161.102 (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The naming rights are paid for. We didn't arbitrarily decide on Wikipedia to call it the Willis Tower. --Smashville^talk 20:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Willis Group Holdings did not pay anything for the naming rights. But that is neither here nor there. I think it would be worthwhile staying on topic or taking the naming debate to another forum. --RKrause (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If we could arbitrary name buildings, why not shoot for the moon and go "Wikipedia Tower"? :) Shereth 20:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Or quite literally shoot for the moon. Neil Armstrong was the first man to land on the WikiMoon. --Smashville^talk 03:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The name thing was a joke, but I still think that United should be mentioned in the article. Every article regarding it has said they will lease 3 times as much space as Willis does, making United Airlines the largest tenant. It should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.161.102 (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can dig me up a source, I'll put it in. --Smashville^talk 19:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Tallest steel-framed building

From an engineering perspective, I think it is noteworthy that the building currently maintains the title of the tallest freestanding steel structure (i.e. the tallest steel-framed skyscraper) in the world. It is also likely to hold this title for the foreseeable future as fewer and fewer supertalls are being designed and constructed of a steel skeleton -- reinforced concrete is both a more economical and more practical alternative.

http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/Tallest/CTBUH_TallestSteel.pdf

As shown above, CTBUH publishes a ranking of the tallest steel structure buildings. Perhaps this fact should be mentioned in the article. --RKrause (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Updating External Links

I was perusing the external links, and I think some revisions might be in order:

Willis Tower in the Structurae Database The database entry is actually titled "Sears Tower", so perhaps the link should reflect that. Then again, what is the reasoning for linking to the Structurae Database? There's nothing significantly noteworthy about the information it provides compared to other more comprehensive and up-to-date resources like Emporis.

SkyscraperPage diagram of Willis Tower This page produces an error message: "We're sorry, this section of SkyscraperPage.com is currently unavailable." In fact, the database has been offline persistently for four weeks. I would recommend simply removing the link until such time as the Webmaster has restored the service.

Of course, these are just suggestions. But in attempting to consistently improve this article, I think that all external resources should be reliable, functional, and of high quality --RKrause (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)