Talk:Burj Khalifa/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Budgets

This recent edit removed some information about the budget because it "conflicts with an earlier statement in this article". I am not so sure about this. We have:

• Building cost $800 million
• Total Budget $4.1 billion

If the design, land and other costs could account for $3.3 billion, then perhaps the removed sentance could be reinstated. However, perhaps one or more of the costs (including the $20 billion for the whole Downtown development) are not US $ but Dirhams. Does anyone have any budget information from a reliable source that we could use to clear up this apparent contradiction? Astronaut (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The cost for the whole Downtown development is in US $, it includes lots of other skyscrapers, some exeeding 60 floors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.135.239 (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick search and this is what I found:

• Cost of Burj Dubai's contract with Samsung is 900 million USD: Gulf News - 25 June 2005
• Burj Dubai's cost is greater than 1 billion USD: Gulf News - 19 April 2008
• Downtown Dubai's cost was 10 billion USD and is expected to increase to 20 billion: Gulf News - 25 June 2005
• Downtown Dubai's cost is 20 billion USD: Gulf News - 21 July 2007

Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 05:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

SOM as official source?

User Maldek has made these changes to the height: (As of 19 April 2008, Burj Dubai has reached a height of 636.9m, with 164 completed floors.) with reference to www.SOM.com. So do you guys feel that the architect's own website falls under an official website? If so, then we can let it stay. Venny85 (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think SOM can count as an official source. I see nothing wrong with quoting the architect, contractor and/or developer as long as their information does not conflict. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 07:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So Emaar was wrong with the last height of 629.0m instead of 630.5m, because every steel beam is 6.4m high.--89.52.122.133 (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no mention of 636.6 m at som.com. Can you provide a link? Astronaut (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, with a google search, the only mentions of 636.9 m that I can find are the forum at skyscrapercity.com, burjdubaiskyscraper.com and Wikipedia's own article. Astronaut (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to 160 stories. The SOM site would be a "reliable source," but I can't find a height quoted there, though they do say "164" stories. Unless the height is there elsewhere, I'd say we should simply go with the reliable source which lists both height and floors - emaar. Otherwise, the date that the height and floor count was reported is not accurate. Emaar said 160 floors, not 164, on April 7. As for the comment that emaar is "wrong" about the height, we are simply reporting what the builder stated, not debating what the "real" height here is. If SOM starts to list both height and floors, then, if more recent than what emaar says, go with it. But they don't seem to be doing that. Canada Jack (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Maldek seems bent on ignoring consensus here. I have reverted - again - to 160/629m as that is what the source says. I checked the source for the height/floor figures on the page here, and it is emaar. And they say 160/629. If you want to change this height/floor figure, Maldek, please supply the source (and not just in the edit line). And, to reiterate, I and Astronaut both found a different floor count at SOM, but no height figure. Where does this height figure come from? If SOM does not have it, we should keep the emaar figures here. Canada Jack (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And I have reverted it again as well. On Wikipedia, information (and particularly controversial infomation) must be referenced from reliable sources and must also be verifiable. Simply SAYING it is from som.com in the edit summary is not good enough, you must SHOW where it is on som.com. If Maldek, or anyone else, can show where on som.com it says 636.9 m then please show us. Astronaut (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess the 636.9m is calculated by Maldek himself based on the height of each floor.

Quote Maldek: Emaar claims that as of 7 April 2008 the Burj Dubai is 629 meters tall with only 160 of the 162 floors completed. If the 160th floor is 629 meters tall then the 162nd floor cannot be only 624.1 meters tall. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. That means the top floor must be a bit higher than 629 meters.Maldek,

So he conveniently adds the height based on the floor count he got at SOM.com and claims everything is official and verifiable. I hope thats not what happened, otherwise thats really a big lie. Maldek are you there? Venny85 (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Maldek: It is not up to us to "correct" the official sources. Even if those official sources are outdated or incorrect. If another reliable source gives a height/floor count figure which seems to be updated, then we can note that, but you have failed to supply that. Indeed, it seems that you have simply extrapolated a height based on the floor count posted on SOM.com. That is called original research even if your height is correct.

Given the secrecy from the builders over the ultimate height, it may very well be the case that we get few height updates down the road, perhaps only the next milestone surpassing the Polish tower which collapsed years ago. But even if they don't post a new height for six months while the tower rises, if there is no reliable source with a new height, it is not up to us to extrapolate a new height. There may be news sources who note, down the road, the reticence of the builders and they may quote a height, and that may be usable. But this nonsense whereby you and others insist on updating heights when the builders don't is not the function of the page. Canada Jack (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is evidence (eg. photos and diagrams) indicating that the floor height varies between different floors. The calculation that Venny85 speculates about above, constitutes original research and is therefore prohibited. Astronaut (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Astronaut and I have reverted Maldek twice over the same issue in the past 15 minutes. Maldek: The SOM.com website DOES NOT QUOTE A HEIGHT. The Blog site burjdubaiskyscraper.com does have a height, but it says it gets it from SOM.com, however as mentioned there is only a floor count there. Therefore there are NO reliable sources for the height you have now inserted half a dozen times. What do you not comprehend here? Canada Jack (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

205 levels (?)

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/9237/burjdetailapi22rq0.jpg

published there: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=19894018&postcount=6241

So, if we count steel levels, there will be 205 for total.

Once we find a reliable source, I'd propose to write

|floor_count=~205

in the infobox.

Droog Andrey (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think floor count should only include habitable floors. The diagram says "Tier 18/624 m/Main roof" suggesting to me that the 140 m of spire access stairs are purely there for maintenance of the spire & pinnacle; and when it gets too narrow the maintenance guy can gooutside through the handily placed access hatch at 758 m. One question, where did the guy who posted it on skyscrapercity.com's forums, get this diagram from? Astronaut (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong, all levels are counted in other buildings wo why not in this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.135.239 (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Burj Dubai floor height.

Again I urge you to use some logic. All of us agree that as of April 7, 2008 the Burj Dubai was atleast 629 meters with 160 floors. Emaar has stated this, and I think everyone understands this. You also agree that there will be atleast, at the minimum 162 floors. What makes no logical sense is that you say the Burj Dubai has 160 out of 162 completed floors and that it is 629 meters tall, but you say that the top floor is at a height of 624.1 meters. How can the top floor be at 624.1 meters, when the 160th floor was at a height of 629 meters? Bascially the only way that this could be possible is if somebody destoryed the top floors of the Burj Dubai and then started over by building smaller floors so that by the time the tinier floors got up to 162 floors it would be 624.1 meters tall. Please use some logic and stop editing the sane edits that I make. If you are going to edit the floor height of the Burj Dubai, please answer this question for me. Do you think it is in anyway logical that the top floor of the Burj Dubai can be 624.1 meters high when already the 160th floor is much higher than that at 629 meters high? Do you think that by adding two more floors the top floor of the Burj Dubai will be 15 feet lower that it currently is? How can the top floor height of the Burj Dubai become lower than it is by adding atleast 2-4 more floors. It's already higher than 624.1 meters, so stop editing the floor height, because you make no logical sense. I am sorry if I seem to be rude, but honeslty I am tired of people saying that the top floor height of the Burj Dubai will be 624.1 meters when as you and Emaar agree the Burj Dubai is currently atleast 629 meters. So stop stating 624.1 meters. Its illogical and contradictory. Thank You.Maldek (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Maldek (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The article does not say 624.1 m at all. The facts are that the reliable sources available to us say the building is currently 629 m and 160 floors. There is no source for 636.9 m (not even som.com, though som.com does say 164 floors). The thing you cannot do, is make up your own figures just because you believe the reliable sources are wrong. Astronaut (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As said above, the only source we can find for the "new" height is on the burjdubaiskyscraper.com blog site, which implies it gets it from SOM.com. But that height in fact is not found at SOM, which would constitute a reliable source. It would seem that someone at burjdubaiskyscraper.com simply inserted that height, perhaps extrapolating based on the floor count.

AS for this 624.1 m stuff, as Astronaut states, what you are talking about? The only mention I can see of that height come in your posts. The reverts have been 629/636. It seems you are confusing something else here. Canada Jack (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Maldek has given it a rest for a couple of minutes, it does indeed say Top Floor = ~624.1 m in the infobox. I have hidden that infobox field until we can find a reliable source to clear up this inconsistancy. Whatever happens, adding data from an unreliable source is not the correct way clear up an inconsistancy. Astronaut (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's very strange. That's where I assumed it would be, but I didn't see it there and I did a text search which said that "624" did not exist on the page - and I posted my previous quote, before you made the change. I just checked the previous version to what you just did and there it is - what gives? But the discrepancy may simply lie in what emaar says is the "roof". Perhaps they only plan 160 inhabited floors, but there are further access floors, so while that 160 has been reached, and the 624 m figure is to that floor, the tower still rises with additional "floors" that are not considered part of the "official" count. We may see the height go up, but the floor count remain static. The Empire State Building, for example, has access levels which could be called "floors" but are not part of the official floor count. Might be as simple as that. That diagram on the thread above talks of 205 floors, but isn't emaar only talking about 160 floors for the final design? This may be one of those issues that the skyscraper arbitrators deal with in what constitutes a bonafide "floor." But as it stands, the reliable source rule still applies. Canada Jack (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Empire State Building consists of 85 office floors, 1 observation floor, 4 mechanical floors, 1 concrete slab floor (the previous story's ceiling), half buttressed columns + elevator/stair pillar embedding 9 metal grilles with glass curtains in between to keep the wind out (ahem, floors), 1 (formerly) well-used, observation floor; 1 elevator motor floor/never opened to public observation ledge, 1 empty floor, and the antenna, yet it's almost universally said to have 102 floors.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Burj Dubai floor height (again)

Discussion moved here from User talk:Astronaut Astronaut (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks for noticing that error on the Burj Dubai floor height. Glad you got rid of it. One thing I would like to point out is that on WWW.SOM.COM it says that as of 14 April 2008, the Burj Dubai has 164 floors. I have not been able to find an offical height on WWW.SOM.COM but if you look on wwww.Burjdubaiskyscraper.com and you look at 19 April 2008, you will see that it states a height of 636.9 meters. This is very likely to be true because if the Burj Dubai had 160 floors when it was 629 meters it is very likely that if as SOM has verified the Burj Dubai now has 164 floors, those extra four floors could make the Burj Dubai at 636.9 meters. You don't have to state 636.9 meters since it is not listed on www.SOM.com, although it does imply this, but you should still list 164 floor since that is listed on www.SOM.com if you search the Burj Dubai. Thank You for you cooperation.Maldek (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what is going on at burjdubaiskyscraper.com. It looks like they got 636.9 m from somewhere but falsely attributed it to som.com. It is this kind of thing that makes sources like burjdubaiskyscraper.com unreliable. Astronaut (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Burj Dubai floor height (yet again)

Hey thanks for pointing me to this talk page. I didn't even know it existed and I see there has been a debate asking for me here. So I will answer your questions. On www.Burjdubaiskyscraper.com it says that www.Som.com states a height of 636.9 meters and 164 floors. I went to www.Som.com and I couldn't find this height but they did list 164 floors. Thus, I suggest we keep the height at 629 meters but the floors should be 164. This sounds fair to me. So I won't change the height until SOM states it but since SOM is a reliable source and it has quoted 164 floors, I will change the floors. Thank You for you cooperation.Maldek (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about all the heat there, Maldek. We had this discussion earlier and I was of the opinion that we should only update when we have both figures from a single source. It strikes me as odd that only a floor count would be found there at SOM.com. Canada Jack (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are we back to just outrightly claiming that www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com is not a reliable source? We had this argument already, and none of you people who have a hard-on for reverting posts could come up with a response to the fact that the wikipedia guidelines on verifiability and reliability cite third party sources as being more legitimate than first party sources.

Maybe I can appeal to your sense of simplicity: www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com has been correct on its height claims. Every time. Since the beginning of construction. That is the definition of "reliability".

Please stop dismissing other people's arguments on the grounds that their source is unreliable, when you are completely unfounded in making that claim and refuse to have open discourse therein. --Galactoise (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Why are we back to just outrightly claiming that www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com is not a reliable source?": because as far as we can tell, the site claimed a height of 636.9 m was on som.com when no such data was actually there. Astronaut (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There are three reasons why that argument is not a legitimate excuse to disregard the data. Before I list them, I ask that you take the time to look into techniques of argumentation, and logical reasoning. I can point you to some good resources, if you'd like. Anywho:

• 1- They (SOM.com) currently don't have ANY height listed, maybe they did list 636.9 and have removed it since.
• 2- They (burjdubaiskyscraper.com) generally don't cite SOM.com as their source, so a bad citation of SOM doesn't negate their previous claims (which have been correct).
• 3- It may just be that we are misreading their (slightly ambiguous) statement. At this point, based on their past history, I would be willing to bet good money that their number is correct.--Galactoise (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As an addendum, it should be noted that you guys have had it out for that site since even before the incident you noted, so to provide that as your "reason" definitely is not gonna fly. Causality is not retroactive.--Galactoise (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. We don't have it "out for that site" - the latest height at burjdubaiskyscraper.com (the 636.9 m) may well be correct, but it is not verifiable. What we do know is that when I, and other editors, tried to verify what burjdubaiskyscraper.com had said by visiting som.com, we could not find the current height stated anywhere. So, what are we to assume: that the height was there but was quickly removed, or the much more obvious explanation that the height was never there in the first place? As I have mentioned before, burjdubaiskyscraper.com is "a blog, possibly by someone with some access to the building site, lots of great photos, but it states things as facts without providing a verifiable source for it's data" and therefore doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Astronaut (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The manner in which you "have it out" for the site is that you guys have some preconcieved notion of what a reliable source is, and somehow only first party sources fit into this mold. You regularly link people to the article on verifiability, but I think that if you read over the article again, you'll realize that www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com can only be classified under the "reliable sources" section (third party source with a history of accuracy and fact-checking), whereas www.som.com and www.burjdubai.com qualify at best as good "questionable sources". As for the SOM incident recently, that doesn't change the accuracy of the source. The way I interpreted their statement was that "SOM's claim of x # of floors is in agreement with the other source's height of ____". Either way, I've seen a lot of people on wikipedia recently who make the same mistake as you, misinterpreting "reliable" as meaning "first party", and it's a pet peeve of mine. I appreciate that you guys are trying to keep the article clean and truthful, just don't take it overboard.--Galactoise (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I can appeal to your sense of simplicity: www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com has been correct on its height claims. Every time. Since the beginning of construction. That is the definition of "reliability".

How do you know this, Galactoise? How can you be certain that the heights quoted on a particular day were "correct... every time"? Canada Jack (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, their claim that the tower, according to SOM.com, was 636.9 m, has shown to be wrong. That claim it would seem never appeared on the site. Some here tried to amend the height figure based on www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com's claim that the height appeared at the other site. But it seems that it was publishing wrong information. It would seem, therefore, that the site is not nearly as reliable as you claim. Canada Jack (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For the love of God, Canada Jack, that is a red herring argument, and even if it weren't, it's probably just an issue of people incorrectly parsing their statement. Even if the site did misquote SOM.com, which we have established is not their usual source, that neither makes the numbers they presented wrong, nor does it negate the legitimacy of their other claims (which, as we have established, are from a different, source). FURTHER, burjdubaiskyscraper.com neither benefits from nor has any reason to falsely cite SOM.com, so benefit of the doubt should be in their favor, and that we simply misinterpreted their statement. If you are confused as to how this could happen, recall that the statement was worded as such "SOM says burjdubai now has X floors, and it is X height". You guys are interpreting this as "SOM says burjdubai now has X floors, and SOM says burjdubai is X height". I interpret that same statement as "SOM says burjdubai has X floors. burjdubai is X height". I hope you understand the clear distinction here. More importantly, though, even if you read it correctly, it DOES NOT make it an illegitimate or unreliable source.--Galactoise (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

For the love of God, Galactoise, you were the one making the claim about the site being "the definition of '"reliability'" and yet I found a clearly false claim in about three seconds. Seems to me that to assert that "people incorrectly parsing their statement" is a rather lame explanation to some clearly inaccurate information. You seem to have an agenda here to establish these guys as being always correct and to do so you make convoluted arguments when they are wrong.

FURTHER, burjdubaiskyscraper.com neither benefits from nor has any reason to falsely cite SOM.com, so benefit of the doubt should be in their favor, and that we simply misinterpreted their statement.

At first, I thought you were kidding. "According to SOM.com Burj Dubai now has 164 floors (updated on 04.14.08), and 636.9 m tall." If that doesn't indicate to the reasonable person that the site is suggesting SOM.com is suggesting it is reporting that height, then I suppose I you might get some employment distilling the "meaning" of Constitutional amendments. Gee, you even have an out if they post some demonstrably wrong height by saying "well, they could have been quoting another source accurately, (even if they don't mention where the figure comes from) even if that other source was wrong, so they are still accurate..." Give me a break.

But let us assume for a moment that your convoluted explanation is correct. The first problem is that we can't be sure what the site is in fact claiming, and yet you still want to site them as some unimpeachable source? Because they are either saying there are 164 floors/636 m reported at SOM. Or, they are saying "164" at SOM and 636 m comes from... whereever. This is your idea of a "reliable source"? The second problem is that you have yet to establish that these guys are as accurate as you claim. You simply have asserted it. You have avoided the question - on what basis do you assert that the skyscraper site is "always" right, that numerous quoted heights at the site are accurate to the tenth of a meter on a given date? How could you possibly know that they are correct? Or that they are simply, for example, extrapolating a height based on architectural plans? And, as Astronaut has also pointed out, the site doesn't tell us how they get their figures, and we have no basis to know the accuracy of these figures!

What is interesting here is that the two sites cite different heights - even when emaar's numbers are presumably more updated than the skyscraper site. When the emaar people quoted the height on April 7, they said 629 metres. But several days earlier, on March 28, the skyscraper site said 630.5 metres. What explains the discrepancy? Could simply be that emaar chooses to mark the height at some completed part and doesn't include structural beams which have just been installed, which the other site includes. Which is why there is a generally agreed-upon arbiter out there to determine what completed buildings are the "tallest" and what criteria are to be followed in determining that, how floors are counted and what we measure height from where to where. When it comes to buildings under construction, well, what do we measure from and where to? I'd say there is no agreed-upon standard here, and since there is no agreed-upon standard here, the easiest thing to do here is to go with the closest-to-primary sources available.

In the end, the ultimate source we should be guided by is the primary source, even if we have some reason to believe that others have more accurate information. If there is a serious discrepancy, then we should note what others say. But we don't have that here, in my view. I'm sorry, but quibbling over 629 metres or 635 metres isn't my idea of a serious discrepancy. Canada Jack (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just another note here on using non-primary sources. If we go by burjdubaiskyscraper.com, we'd think that the architect himself has said there will be only 4 habitable floors in the steel structure of the burj dubai, thus implying the floor count will be 164 floors. This was posted on the blog May 4, and it presumably is quoting a story from architect Adrain Smith which appeared in Xpress news of Dubai.[1] When one reads the story, though it indeed suggests that there are "4" inhabitable floors within the spire, according to their paraphrase of what Smith said, what is Smith himself quoted as saying is the floor count? “It’s 160 total habitable floors, yes,” said Smith. So... was the story here simply incorrect in suggesting those 4 floors are "habitable" when Smith indicated they were service floors of some nature? Or did they misquote Smith when he said "4" or "160" or "habitable"? If we are to simply go by what burjskyscraper.com says, then it seems there will indeed be 164 inhabitable floors. But a careful reading of their likely source reveals something else. Which is the primary reason why we, when we have them, should rely on primary sources and not on other parties whose sources are not always clear. Canada Jack (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Burj Dubai and the 2200 feet Fictional Cogswell Building from the Jetsons?

Okay so we all know that the Burj Dubai will surpass the Warsaw Radio Mast soon becoming the tallest manmade structure of any kind to ever be built on the face of the planet. But could we add another milestone. Like a fictional building. Could the fictional 2,200 feet Cogswell building from the 1962 show the Jetsons be another milestone? What is considered as a milestone? The Jetsons supposedly took place in 2062 and they said that the Cogswell building which was 2,200 feet was the tallest building of the time during 2062. Could this be yet another milestone. The Burj Dubai would not only become the tallest Manmade Structure ever built on the Earth but also become the tallest skyscraper ever depicted in the 21st Century. This could be huge as the Burj Dubai will be atleast 2,684 feet which will make it significantly higher than the Cogswell building. The Cogswell building was the highest building in the SKy HIgh Jetsons TV show. It was actually 2,200.5 feet which made it six inches taller than the 2,200 feet regulation. This means that the Burj Dubai will become taller than this depicted future building from 2062. Taller than any depicted skyscraper fictional and real in the entire 21st Century. This is Huge as a building in 2008 excedes the height of the 2062, 2,200.5 foot Cogswell building. Should this be considered a milestone. Please let me know because ever since I saw that building I had always wanted this as a final milestone. Imagine we have a building taller than any building in the futuristic Jetsons TV show. What a miraculous Milestone that would be!Maldek (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that idea is which fictional story do we use? I'm pretty sure we could find an even taller fictional building by surveying more literature and entertainment sources. Astronaut (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay so maybe we should find the tallest fictional building in the 21st Century from literature and television and make that Burj Dubai's final milestone. How does that idea sound?Maldek (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be the Tyrell Pyramid from Blade Runner, or a Genom Pyramid from Bubblegum Crisis? --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Burj Dubai last milestone

Okay how tall are these buildings. They could be Burj Dubai's last milestone. Just tell me the height and I will add them as a milestone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldek (talk • contribs) 04:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not worth it, since 1) There are no good sources, and 2) They aren't real. --Golbez (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There are absolutely no useful criteria on which to compare a fictional building with a real building. --Galactoise (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

10% of the way to the Death zone (800m)? Or twice as tall as well-known structures? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Those might be interesting heights to note while the tower is near them, but I wouldn't really describe them as "milestones", and that doesn't really have anything to do with fictional comparisons. Also, the first of the two is a measure of altitude, not height. It just so happens that the building is basically at sea-level and therefore altitude and height correspond, but that's a bit misleading. What do you guys think, though? Any interesting comparison heights coming up?--Galactoise (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)--

but I wouldn't really describe them as "milestones"

That's right, there are none. The first over the Warsawa mast is 2x the Empire State Building, 2,500ft tall. 2x the Eiffel Tower (1889-1930) and Chrysler Building, previous world record holders, was/will be 2,024ft and 2,092ft respectively, (nonnotable?). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Very RUDE People

I have just noticed there are some very rude people who are posting profanity on some of these posts such as the Burj Dubai. These people are speaking racist comments about the middle East and the Muslim religion. I have also noticed comments like these on other wikepeida posts like the one on Shahrukh Khan. Can these people be removed from editing because they say very mean stuff about people and other religions. I was just very shocked to see so much profanity and hate towards a culture that had nothing to do with September 11, 2001. Dubai had nothing to do with the bombing of the twin towers.Maldek (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If such edits are being made, please note them on WP:ANI rather than reporting it here. That said, I looked through Timsdad's recent contributions and found nothing off; you may have gotten him confused with an IP address that edited right after him. --Golbez (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake

Yeah it was not Timsdad. It was an anonymous person. It said reverted to Timsdad orginal way, so it was somebody else. Sorry for the mistake.Maldek (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Image gallery

I feel that there are too many images in the image gallery. If other users share this sentiment, I propose having a maximum of one image/diagram per month. Currently, there are four months that have two images/diagrams and one month that has three. Additionally, I would want to remove all images that do not focus on the Burj Dubai or images where the Burj Dubai is hard to see when it is in the gallery. If a user wants to see more images of the Burj Dubai, they can go to Wikimedia Commons where there are additional images. Is there any agreement, opposition, or even an alternative proposition? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree, but I'm not sure that one image per month should be a rule but more of a guideline. I think the idea of the gallery should be to show the progression of the construction including the building's cladding. A couple of long shots comparing Burj Dubai to the surrounding buildings would be nice too.

Two images I think we can definitely remove, are the height comparison diagrams. They provide no information that is not expressed in the text of the article and look odd amongst a gallery of photographs. But, if it is really thought necessary, I can add the CN tower and KVLY-TV mast to the main height comparison diagram. Astronaut (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I said one image maximum per month so that there are not two images only one week apart. Yes, adding the CN Tower and the KVLY-TV mast to the comparison diagram would be the best thing to do so we can remove the diagrams. So, do you have any ideas about which ones should be removed? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 19:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"...add the CN tower and KVLY-TV mast to the main height comparison diagram" and remove the other two heigjht comparison diagrams from the gallery. - Done. Astronaut (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I request the removal of a few more images? I would like to see the images from 22 August, 20 February and one of the March images taken out. The August 2007 is of really bad quality and another image from that same month is also there. The February 2008 image should be removed because there is already another February image that shows the entire structure and since there is no January image, it would be better to have an image as close to that month as possible. One of the March 2008 images should be removed because we do not need two images from the same month. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 01:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The 22 August image is particularly poor, probably due to it being a dusty day and the image being "adjusted" so some details could be seen. The 18 March image could also go because of that ugly elevated road in the foreground. But the 20 February image is particularly good (good enough to be used in 8 other articles) so perhaps the 18 February image would be a better choice to be removed because there is another close-up of the top in the body of the article. That said, I was hoping for more comment from the other regulars here to get some kind of consensus. However, if you are bold and delete away, perhaps that will bring out the comments. Astronaut (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since no one else has commented other than you (Astronaut), I will removed the 22 August, 18 March and 18 February images. Thanks for your input. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 22:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How about adding some new images to the gallery?

Like this one (dated as June 1st, 2008): http://www.flickr.com/photos/downintheblue/2543318684/sizes/o/

87.252.227.43 (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that image cannot be added since it is copyrighted and does not provide any claim that it can be used commercially. Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy for more details about images on Wikipedia. Thanks anyway. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought we agrreed on the Burj Dubai's Floors?

Hey I thought we both argreed on 164 stories, why are you going behind my back and changing it? Since we can't compromize I have changed the Burj Dubai's height back to 636.9 meters. I shouldn't have to hold up my end of the bargain if you don't hold up yours. Thank You.Maldek (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, maldek, if you look at the source as it stands, it says 160 stories, not 164. Only SOM.com says 164, but that is not the source the figure links to. It seems rather silly to me to say "On April 7, it was reported to be 629 m and, on April 14, reported to be 164 stories..." which is really what we'd have to do here. Not sure what function that would serve other than to muddy the waters. Why not simply state that on April 7 they reported 629m, 160 floors? That is an accurate reflection of what was reported. If SOM.com reports a floor and a height figure, then we can go with that, but they have yet to do that. Canada Jack (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Canada Jack does make a good point here. However, if the 164 floors mentioned on som.com included the below ground floors, that would make a whole lot more sense (but we can't say that in the article because it's pure speculation).

The solution though is not to vandalize the page with incorrect data just to punish someone for breaking some "bargin" you imagine has been made. Disrupting Wikipedia just to make a point is not the way to edit here. It has been said before, but we must concentrate on providing verifiable data from reliable souces, and the 636.9 m is definitely not verifiable. Astronaut (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.xpress4me.com/news/uae/dubai/20007194.html So, we have 160 habitable floors. Let's change the floor count to 160. I have no idea about the number "162", what does it mean? Droog Andrey (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's all a bit confusing. A long while ago we had 160 floors plus 2 basement levels, then we had 162 floors, then 164 floors appeared. Now we are back to 160 floors with a good source to back it up (but the other numbers had sources to back them up too). I've seem diagrams with 2 and 3 basement levels, diagrams with mezzanine floors that disrupt the floor count, and a diagram with 2 floors drawn but the floor count increasing by 3 at each "machinery level". I've tried counting the floors on a recent photograph - it's harder than it looks but I got 154 twice!. What with vandals adding ludicrous floor counts of 189, 190, 195 or 196 floors, and someone suggesting 205 floors because their diagram had "levels" right to the top of the spire, the whole thing is getting silly. I think the best thing to do now is wait until the building is completed, pay it a visit and see how high the numbers go in the elevator! Astronaut (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, like Sagittarian Milky Way said at Talk:Burj Dubai#Burj Dubai floor height., the Empire State Building is universally known to have 102 floors even though a few of the floors are not even used. I think we should still say that the Burj Dubai is expected to have 162 floors (Source: Emporis) but will only have 160 habitable floors (Source: Adrian Smith via XPRESS). Or we should just leave it at 162 floors and wait until Emporis changes it. It is better to cite an authority on skyscrapers than anything else. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 19:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The ref currently used to support the 160 floor count clearly states: "No new habitable floors will be added beyond the completed 160 floors". If we are going to use 162 based on Emporis (which I don't necessarily agree with, As Emporis often posts incorrect information), then the source should be changed. I recently reverted an edit by Maldek stating that the floor count will be "More than 160", as the reference being used clearly states otherwise. Cheers, Rai•me 21:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Burj Dubai New Height

The Burj Dubai is now 643.3 meters Tall as stated on May 4, 2008 by BurjDubaiskyscraper.com. You can see the pictures for May if you like and count the floors or go to Dubai and see for yourself.Maldek (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that at burjdubaiskyscraper.com, but how can we verify it? There is NO source named for this new height so we cannot use it. Astronaut (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You can see the new height of 643.3 meters for Burj Dubai on BurjDubaiskyscraper.com. Click on the May photos and count the floors or just go to Dubai and see it for yourself and ask the people there are how tall it is. You have no proof that it is not as tall as BurjDubaiskyscraper.com says it is. Instead of speculating go to Dubai and ask the officials themselves and see what they tell you. After doing that, then you can come onto this site and give your Verdict.Maldek (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is there is no proof that what BurjDubaiskyscraper.com says is true either. That is the problem here. As I have said before, we need verifiable data from reliable sources. Astronaut (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there anybody that verified the statements of the official site about the current height? Can we verify them? BurjDubaiskyscraper is giving much more information (photo's, text, which steel floor is completed) and is in respect to verifiability in my opinion a better source.

An important editor of this website is Imre Solt. His linked in: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/1/ab1/4a1. BDSkyscraper is giving information about their team: http://www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com/info.html.

I don't claim BDSkyscraper is completely reliable and the official site of course is not completely unreliable. The final height will be measured by the CTBUH (or a contractor company), but in the mean time I would say BDSkyscraper is the best option to be used in wikipedia. JTLely (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point, JTLely. We have several primary sources here - the company developing the structure and the company building the structure. And they post height and floor counts. On what basis do we grant a third party the status of being a better source than the primary sources? We might do so if a) the primary sources are so clearly wrong or inaccurate that another source is needed. Is that the case here? I think not. Burjdubai.com or emaar simply are not updating their heights as frequently as some would like. Or, we might go with a third party if b) the third party reveals its data collection methods as being superior or so accurate that there is no question what they post is accurate. In this case, however, we have no indication as to where their information comes from, and when they have cited sources, they have got the information wrong or confused. And, despite the claims from others that the bdskyscraper site is "always" correct, there is complete silence on how in fact we determine whether they are as accurate as claimed. As far as I can see, they are "correct" that the tower is about at the height they claim, but there is nothing I see that corroborates the specific heights I have seen from them. Indeed, after a recent height claim by bdskyscraper in March, burjdubai.com quoted a lower height when reporting it becoming the world's tallest structure last month.

The only issue here for some seems to be the tendency from the builders not to bother to update their height reports as frequently as some would like. But at this point there seems little reason to get too flustered about this as we are talking about only a few meters difference between sites. Maybe if there is no update months down the road and the tower is soaring higher there will be some justification for something like this: "the builders quoted a height of 629 m in April, but has not updated its height since then. Other sources claim the tower is now 720 m as of August 30..." or some such language. Canada Jack (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting sources

Once again we find ourselves with apparently conflicting information from different sources, causing a minor disagreement between Maldek (who else!) and Droog Andrey. On one hand, the Baldwin source says "No new habitable floors will be added beyond the completed 160 floors", while the Emaar's 12 May Press Release says "636 metres ... and more than 160 storeys high". This time, both sources seem to be pretty reliable and I think both are correct.

I think the root of this difference is in the term "habitable floors". When does a floor qualify as habitable? Does Emaar's statement include the basement floors, mezzanine floors or landings constructed in the spire? Perhaps we should decide if the the "floor count" in the infobox should include all floors or just "habitable" floors?

Astronaut (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I came across this large photo (warning: the photo is very large, 26.5MB), showing the tower after the completion of the concrete structure and just after the steel structure had started construction. Counting down from the top, I counted 49 levels before arriving at a large "85" painted on a concrete pillar (on the left of the photo a few levels above the highest cladding). That makes the roof of the concrete structure the 154th level. If someone can find a good very up-to-date photo of the top (perhaps taken from an aircraft), the current number of levels (habitable or not) can simply be counted - then again, perhaps that will count as original research so cannot be used in the article.

A couple of things to note are: the numbering sometimes skips a number (eg. just below the highest cladding it counts 69, 70, 71, one unnumbered level, 74), and when you eventually get to the bottom it appears to use european floor numbering where the first floor is the first above the ground floor.

Astronaut (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should just stick with the total number of floors given by a reliable source and completely ignore the number of habitable floors. Doesn't the Empire State Building have more than 100 floors, even though some of them are not habitable? Well, the same should apply to the Burj Dubai.

But I should add that I have a feeling that Emaar will no longer update the number of floors in the Burj Dubai. In their latest press release, it said "more than 160 floors." Also, since the last official height update by Emaar on the Burj Dubai website, the number of floors has been removed. I guess we will have to wait until the next official height update to see what happens.

And you are correct about your above research being original, so we sadly cannot use it. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

156 + 4 + a yet unknown number of not fully habitable floors

After comparing four sources with statements about floors and heights, made by

A) A senior engineer of Besix: [2], Jozef de Hauwere on Belgian Television, which can be retrieved from [deredactie.be] (in Dutch)

B) Emaar, in a april press release on their site: [3]

C) Emaar, in a may press release on their site: [4]

D) Derek Baldwin interviewing Adrian Smith [5] which can be retrieved from [[6]]

I think we can conclude that,

1) Burj Dubai has 156 storeys of reinforced concrete. The top of this part of the tower is at 585 metre. This claim is supported by source A and D. Jozef de Hauwere quite explicitely says the top of the reinforced concrete structure is at this height. EDIT: and by another source, arabianbusiness.com: [7]

2) The first four storeys of the steel structure are fully habitable. The Communication equipment is housed there. The rest is inhabitable. Supported by B and D.

Source C contains the statement that more than 160 storeys have been completed. I think it makes sense to read the extra storeys as not fully habitable storeys...

What do you think of this people? And who can count, with sources mentioned, the number of storeys in the upper part of the Burj, the steel structure part?

EDIT: A certain "Ray Fleury (Fury)" has given plans of the tower to BDskyscraper, which can be retrieved from:

[8] 507-585 metres

[9] 586-643 metres

They are pretty much consistent with the other sources I included in this short story. NB: some storeys, like the 160th, are much taller than others.

JTLely (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Burj Dubai new height update + NEW MILESTONE

Burj Dubai is now the world's tallest structure ever built. The construction of the next steel floor has started which makes the tower 649.7 m tall. See our comparison diagram below. The 94th floor of Burj Dubai has sold for $12 million. 11000 sq ft of office space will be available for the European buyer. --- from http://www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com/ ---Drjibber (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Burjdubaiskyscraper.com, while a useful site, is not a reliable source of official milestones like these. Wait until Emaar announces it. WP:NOT a news site anyway... BigBlueFish (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Floor count

I just want to clearify some issues.

1. Mechanical levels ARE counted as floors. So the building will have somewhere in the region of 189-205 floors if the plans available are correct.

2. You can CLEARLY see that the building has 165 floors when looking at recent construction shots. So the building currently HAS 165 floors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.135.239 (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources? If not, then we cannot use the information you provided. Original research is not valid on Wikipedia. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 18:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And let us "clearify" the issues:

1. No original research.

2. Cite reliable sources.

That means in terms of current and future floor counts, we don't consult a diagram and count (original research), we quote as close to a primary source as possible for the number of floors. Failing that, a reliable source. A blog site is not considered a "reliable source," especially when they don't publish how they arrive at their facts and figures. So far, the builders seem to be saying something along the neighbourhood of 160/165 floors. There is confusion as to what, exactly, that means - if there are "only" 160 floors, and the others "don't count," or if some body will indeed consider those floors within the spire as "floors" even if the architect/builders/developers don't. Or if the builders are simply not updating much and will jack up the floor count later. We don't know. Perhaps, down the road, the word of the skyscraper arbitrators who may have a set of criteria as to what counts and what doesn't count as a "floor" will be the determining factor. At the moment, we simply report what those closest to the primary source report.

Actually, that will be an interesting issue. Because, as far as I can tell, in the past maintenance floors have been included in a floor count, but these typically only amount to a small number of floors, scattered throughout. In the case of this tower, however, we might be talking of upward of 45 floors on top of the inhabited space, so whether those floors will be considered in the over-all floor count will be something the arbitrators might have to rule on.

And yes, 84, looking a photograph and counting the floors when that floor count is not published elsewhere by a reliable source is original research even if my 6-year-old could do it. Canada Jack (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10