Jump to content

Talk:Willis Tower

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80.251.5.126 (talk) at 11:38, 5 November 2011 (→‎Name of this article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WP1.0

Name of this article

Why is this article at "Willis Tower" rather than "Sears Tower"? I'll admit that I'm really too familiar with how things are done here, but according to this "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article" and the common English-language name of that building remains the Sears Tower.

In the last month 52 news stories mentioned the Sears Tower, while only 42 news stories mentioned the Willis Tower. When major publications refer to the tower, Sears Tower generally takes precedence in the naming:

From [[The New Yorker]: "Kuala Lumpur’s Petronas Towers (one thousand four hundred and eighty-two feet) are thirty-two feet taller than Chicago’s Sears Tower (or Willis Tower, as it is now called)" - clearly Sears Tower is the real name, Willis Tower is a mere parenthetical [1]

Many other sources don't even mention the Willis Name, for example The Economic Times - "Christened as World One, the tower will be higher than some of the iconic global landmarks including Sears Tower in Chicago" [2], the New York Times -" including the plan to bomb the Herald Square subway station, the plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago " [3], Wired - "There are several models including Fallingwater, the Guggenheim Museum, the Empire State Building, Seattle’s Space Needle, the Sears Tower and the John Hancock Building." [4] and many, many more.

Reliable sources also confirm that the tower is better known as the Sears Tower. "An ambitious planned renovation of Willis Tower (formerly and better known as the Sears Tower)" [5], for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagolander (talk • contribs) 20:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't engage in too lengthy an argument at the moment, but I want to point out that Wired is clearly (I can tell without clicking) talking about the Lego Architecture series, which has curiously not had the Sears Tower available for sale since around the time of the rename; my assumption was to change the name. And as for your "real name" comment, that's a little snarky; an object's real name is that given to it by its owners, not by the people at large. The Statue of Liberty's real name is "Liberty Enlightening the World", the Bean's real name is "Cloud Gate", and the Sears Tower's real name is "Willis Tower". No amount of public disagreement can change the fact that its owners have named it that. The question becomes, when does common usage trump the actual name. I believe I argued that it's about whether the name came from the popular consciousness, or from the owners. The people have nicknamed that particular statue the Statue of Liberty, or that particular structure the Bean... but they did not confer upon the Sears Tower its name. And especially with private constructions (Aon Center, FedExField, Sun Life Stadium, Burj Khalifa, Verizon Center, Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre Charlotte, Charlotte Motor Speedway (nee Lowe's Motor Speedway nee Charlotte Motor Speedway)), we should respect the desires of the owners. We can't simply say, "you don't get to name this because many people already like a name." The people didn't give Sears Tower its name, its owners did, and the owners have the right to change it regardless of the people, and I personally think we should respect their decision. Common name should not trump fact when it is demonstrably wrong. (now, if anyone ever tried to rename the Empire State Building, there'd be hell to pay, but fortunately that's a bridge we can cross should we ever arrive at it, and I don't think any company is conceited enough to try) --Golbez (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Sears Tower falls into the same category as most corporate-named structures, since it has adopted a popular iconic value that transcends the limited circumstances of its name origin. A similar example would be Wrigley Field, which strictly speaking, is corporate named, but I strongly doubt many people would call it anything but Wrigley Field if the naming rights were transferred. It's a situation similar to where long familiar use of a trademark makes it a common term. We're not quite at that point with these examples, but I think we have crossed the threshold where the name does not belong only to the owners, since these structures have broader historical importance and the traditional names have acquired a general currency.
I agree with the person above. The only really iconic building on that list is Burj Khalifa in Dubai and that is not the same situation as is new and was known as Burj Dubai only during the construction faze. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.248.2 (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However the article is named, there is no justification for "presentism" that rewrites the past in terms of present nomenclature. It is ahistorical to say that the "Willis Tower" was ever the world's tallest building. Proper method for historical narratives requires that you use the name that was in use at the time you are describing. At the very least, restore the name Sears Tower when describing anything before mid-2009. Otherwise it reads like corporate revisionism. JoeFink (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The building known as the Willis Tower was indeed the world's tallest building, just as we could say that the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been the third-largest country in area in Africa since independence, notwithstanding that it used to be named Zaire. So far as I can tell, care has been taken to minimize anachronisms; can you point one out? Example, "Taipei 101 surpassed the Petronas Twin Towers in spire height and the Sears Tower in roof height". It was known as Sears Tower then, and the proper name is used. The only supposed anachronism I can find is indeed in the infobox, but that is accurate: The building that is Willis Tower was the tallest in the world, but under a different name, which is a distinction better handled in prose. It's not like it became a different building when renamed. A list of "buildings which have been the tallest in the world" would rightly call it the "Sears Tower (now Willis Tower)", since it had that name while being the tallest... but in this case, I think what's there is fine. --Golbez (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wikipedia's article on the Statue of Liberty is called, quite properly, Statue of Liberty. The Wikipedia naming convention is based not on the rather metaphysical concept of the "real name," it's based on the name that the subject is best known by. The evidence suggests that the building is still best known as the Sears Tower, so according to Wikipedia rules, the name should be changed back. Nareek (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like corporate revisionism because it is corporate revisionism. This is just another reason wikipedia is full of crap. Happens all the time. Get used to it. 72.247.151.10 (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Corporate revisionism... of a corporate name? So, er... I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's not like "Sears Tower" was a name bequeathed upon it by a loving populace since it embodied the nature of Sears & Roebuck for them. That was its old name; it has a new name. Kind of like "Cote d'Ivoire". Isn't that corporate revisionism, just of a different kind of corporation? --Golbez (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that common naming conventions would seem to indicate that the article should still (at least for the time being, unless and until common usage changes) be called "Sears Tower". The relevant distinction is between "official name" and "common name" (let us set aside any possible red herrings re "real name"). This debate has been had all over, in many organizations, and it seems sensible that wikipedia should follow common usage---compare the issue as discussed re Macedonia (official name "Republic of Macedonia", still called commonly in some parts of the world "The Former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia", but generally agreed here to follow the English language usage conventions, which calls it simply "Macedonia"). Wikipedia policy is, and should be, to follow English speakers' usage: we are *not* bound by official bodies' pronouncements (be they the U.N. or a corporate naming contract). Mundart (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Macedonia's a poor example, since the common name and the formal name are virtually equivalent. A much better example is Myanmar, which in its [incorrect, IMO] wisdom, Wikipedia has chosen to place at Burma. --Golbez (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this should be at Sears Tower per WP:COMMONNAME. 99.146.122.70 (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The opening sentence reads "The Willis Tower (formerly named, and still commonly referred to as the Sears Tower)", and it itself states that the common name is the Sears Tower. Why then, is WP:COMMONNAME being disregarded? Lynch7 17:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather the point I was trying to make is that the opening sentence should not mention "still commonly referred to". Any person with basic WP knowledge will immediately dispute that. Lynch7 12:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; you're assuming an object cannot have more than one common name. The country I am in is commonly referred to as either the United States or America. Several countries are commonly referred to with multiple names (England/UK, Holland/Netherlands, Russia/USSR), and while some of those names are factually incorrect, that doesn't change that they are commonly used. So, saying that one name is still commonly used does not mean it's the only name commonly used. --Golbez (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at a Google News search for the last month, there are 200 results for "Sears tower" and 103 for "Willis Tower". So 2x more for Sears, but let's consider that most of those, based on my reading, are about reactions to 9/11, when the building was called the Sears Tower, so that introduces a certain anachronism to these numbers; furthermore, many articles use both names. But I'm seeing articles from the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the AP all saying "Willis Tower". I'm going to have to challenge this notion that 'Sears' is still the preferred name, at least in the press. --Golbez (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A year after the fact, I would likewise challenge that it's still "commonly" known by its prior name. Renaming this article to the tower's former name would make wikipedia look stupid. Let's try to avoid that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, true that ^ (all the likelihood of getting a couple of weird negative press reports). Anyway, where I come from, its still commonly referred to as Sears Tower, but if Chicagoans themselves call it Willis Tower, then I shouldn't have any reservations. Good day guys. Lynch7 16:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate rebranding nonsense - this should be Sears tower. That's ok, when the rights change again, we will just change the name again, ignoring COMMONNAME. What a load of nonsense, wikipedia is a corporate cesspool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.30.162.10 (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate rebranding of a corporate name, why is this considered so inviolate? --Golbez (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the IP could buy the naming rights himself. Then he could call it the Sears Tower, the 96.30.162.10 Tower, the Corporate Cesspool Tower, or whatever he wants. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we have reached a consensus that this should be called Sears Tower. Can someone go ahead and rename the article? Stargate70 (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because some reliable news sources haven't caught up with the name change, does not mean Wikipedia should follow suit. If the name has changed - owners have changed their buildings' name - then off course, we should do the same. It's the Willis Tower, not Sears. I think we should all try and start living in the present, and not the past. I would think that CommonName goes out the window, if it's possible to count multiple articles that don't follow the guidline. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 01:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have? A handful of comments that ended with two people agreeing that Chicagoans call it the Willis Tower from a month ago without any formal RM request is consensus? --Golbez (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Golbez, we will need such a change to pass a formal RM before this article should be moved. Frietjes (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's an interesting article here ("Talkin' About Willis"). It says, "During the second half of 2009, the Sears Tower name accounted for 56% of the media references to the tower, according to a survey of newspapers and magazines by HighBeam Research. Thus far this year, Willis Tower has surpassed Sears, accounting for about 54%." Zagalejo^^^ 19:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the actual name, the name in common usage is the Sears Tower. People actually in Chicago will probably not ever refer to the building as the Willis Tower. Do you see people rushing off to rename one of Frank Lloyd Wrights buildings? No. The Pentagon isn't getting a new name. Neither is the White House. The Sears Tower is named for the company that built it and it should remain that way for all time. If some corporation buys up the rights to the name of the Golden Gate Bridge, would still refer to it as the Golden Gate? This is really an issue of history and not really about how cool the name is.

Construction

Are there really no pictures of the construction of the Sears Tower? It must have been fairly widely covered in the media. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Also I can't believe there are no pictures from the skydeck here. There are tons of freely licensed pictures on flickr. Maybe I'm missing something but I'm gonna upload a couple. One thing I don't get is that some are under a CC license but still say request to license via Getty Images. I changed a photo to CC to see what happened and the Getty Images thing disappeared. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Seanm775, 11 May 2011

Please change "At the time of its completion in 1973, it was the tallest building in the world, surpassing the World Trade Center towers in New York, and it held this rank for nearly 25 years." to "At the time of completion in 1973, it was the tallest building in the world, surpassing the World Trade Centre towers 1 and 2 in New York, until the completion of the CN Tower in Toronto 3 Years later."

Seanm775 (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CN Tower is a free-standing structure, not a building. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 15:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To put it a way that has worked for me: When you remove the usable, inhabitable, areas from the CN Tower, or, say, the KVLY-TV mast, you still have a tremendously tall tower. When you remove the usable, inhabitable, areas from the Sears Tower, you're left with an empty lot. That's the difference between a building and a tower. Both, however, are structures. Incidentally, the Sears Tower was never the tallest structure in the world, having been built after said KVLY-TV mast. It was, however, the tallest free-standing structure. Distinctions are fun! --Golbez (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers Dark of the Moon

The tower was used in Transformers Dark of the Moon. It is used by the military. They use it to sneak into Chicago. The tower is later destroyed in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.148.221 (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, i have seen the movie and it is destroyed and used to sneak into Chicago. I will add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souvalou (talk • contribs) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Tallest Structure?

The article lists the Willis Tower as the fifth tallest freestanding structure in the world. Included in that description is a link to the article listing the tallest freestanding structures in the world, which clearly places the Willis tower as seventh. 24.252.249.102 (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Unfortunately, these skyscraper articles are a complete mess, with all kinds of contradictory and out-of-date information. I decided to completely remove the "height to roof" ranking, since it doesn't seem like the corresponding article on that list has been updated lately. Zagalejo^^^ 03:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Building Lean

The figure about the building leaning 4 inches to the West is undocumented and false. According to the new owners of the "Sears Tower" name, the building was designed to lean 6 inches to counteract for the rotation of the Earth -- a fact that engineers later discovered was unnecessary. Documented at http://www.searstower.org/home.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.44.182.118 (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Willis_Tower&oldid=459123460"