Wikipedia

Talk:Burj Khalifa/Archive 6

< Talk:Burj Khalifa
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Astronaut in topic I just wonder
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Why 649.7 m keeps being reverted

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

A Google search reveals 7 hits for this new height. Let's examine each one to see if it a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia's policies:

Reliable? - A blog. Wording is speculation. No source cited. ... Not reliable.
Reliable? - A forum. 649.7 m first mentioned in post #7184. No source cited. ... Not reliable.
Reliable? - A forum. Post #7201. Same user as in post #7184. Still no source cited. ... Not reliable.
Reliable? - A forum. Cites burjdubaiskyscraper as it's source. ... Not reliable.
Reliable? - A forum. 649.7 m first mentioned in post #6076. Wording is speculation. No source cited. ... Not reliable.
Reliable? - A forum. Most likely an archive of post #6076. Wording is speculation. No source cited. ... Not reliable.
Reliable? - A forum. 649.7 m first mentioned in post #137. Wording is speculation. Same username as at skyscraperpage.com. No source cited. ... Not reliable.

Then there's burjdubaiskyscraper.com (which hasn't even been scanned by Google yet) saying "2008.may.20 ... which makes the tower 649.7 m tall."

Reliable? - A blog. No source cited. ... Not reliable.

So what are we to believe? 4 of these sources are speculation and 4 seem to be more recent confirmation of that speculation. The earliest confirmation of the speculation would appear to have been from user BlackSmith! on skyscrapercity.com (post #7184) with no indication where he got that figure. What we actually have is data that cannot be verified from sources that don't qualify as a reliable source.

Astronaut (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A closer examination of the skyscrapercity.com forum, suggests that it is one of the forum's moderators who announces the latest height. From what I can tell, there is a diagram showing heights and level numbers which the moderator updates from time to time. Maybe his day job is at the Burj Dubai site, maybe he works for one of the companies involved in construction - I don't know, but presumably he finds out which girders or frames are being erected and calculates the current height off of his diagram. BUT, the next girder or frame seems to be common knowledge amongst the forum members, so he's not the only one with this information. Whatever is the source, it sounds a lot like Wikipedia's definition of original research to me. Astronaut (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

englisboa (talk) (Englisboa (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)) It seams to me that as those sites also have photographic evidence I don't see them as not being related. Crossing the blueprints with the photos they show anyone can see the height (more or less a meter or so). These heights seam much more correct than the official height.

The discussion has moved on quite a bit since this thread was live. But to address your specific point: Unreliable sources such as those above, seem to be taking measurements and estimating height based on an out-of-date plan. That is original research and therefore cannot be used on Wikipedia. Astronaut (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Lock request

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

This article needs to be locked from edits by IP addresses (and if possible by other users that do not respect consensus). The amount of reverting and clean-up we have to do is just annoying and getting out of control. I also think we should not only lock this page for a limited amount of time, but for longer. This article constantly receives vandalism and undiscussed edits even when the Burj Dubai does not even reach any milestones. Is there any agreement or opposition to this proposal? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 18:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  Done. Requested just now. Astronaut (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Not quite the protection I had requested. But at least it'll give everyone a chance take a breather. Astronaut (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I know. I was surprised to find that I am also blocked from editing. But, as you say, it will help calm things down. I know this is a little too early but once the current block is over, will it be possible for this article to receive indefinite semi-protection? And what about blocking certain users (that have repeatedly made edits without any agreement or consensus) from editing the article? The first user that comes to mind is Maldek, but there might be one or two others that are just as persisent. Since this is not the last time people will try to update this article using unsourced data, it is probable that this article will undergo another edit war. I think having such protection will help prevent any further acts of vandalism or additions of inaccurate data. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Once the full-protection is lifted, I strongly suspect the unsourced updates by anon/IP editors will return and probably continue until the building is topped-out later this year. If it gets to be too much of a problem like it did yesterday, we could ask at WP:RFPP again; but I'm not convinced the admins will be happy to semi-protect indefinitely - it kinda goes against the whole "encyclopedia anyone can edit" thing.
As for Maldek, after the bogus som.com reference incident I thought he had finally got the message about verifiable data from reliable sources. But alas, no. This time, perhaps we could try some arbitration process, but if I understand it properly, arbitration is not for resolving what the admins might consider a content dispute - they will probably say: instead of edit-warring, editors are expected to reach consensus through Talk Page discussion. Unfortunately, we pretty much have consensus on what is a reliable source for height and # of floors, but Maldek persists in ignoring that consensus. The page potection policy does allow for a block in these cases and I'm reluctanly coming round to the idea that a (temporary?) block might be best, but I would far rather Maldek read and understood Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and started contributing good quality, well referenced information to all manner of articles.
Astronaut (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, well we will have to wait and see what happens. Thanks. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Emaar makes ERRORS and Sources Conflict.

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

You say that Emaar is a reliable source but if you go to the official website the height is still 629.0 meters but you quote a height of 636 meters which does not appear on the Burj Dubai offical website. I understand that this 636 meters is on an article that Emaar released but although it says 636 meters it also says 2,064 feet not 2,087. Obviously Emaar said 636 meters and 2,064 feet but you put 2,087 feet so you are putting up false information. Another thing is that both Emaar sources conflict with each other as one says 629 meters and another says 636 meters. Since Emaar obviously does not know the conversion between feet and meters and they quote different heights on different sites they are unreliable as a source. It doesn't even say when the tower reached 636 meters. It just says the tower is over 636 meters and Emaar does not even list 636 meters on their offical Burj Dubai site. On top of that they claim the tower is both 636 meters and 2,064 feet right next to each other in the same article. Since 636 meters is not 2,064 feet which height is correct? 2,064 feet corresponds roughly to 629 meters another height that Emaar simultaneously claims on the Official Burj Dubai website. This leaves me to beleive that Emaar is not reliable source because of conflicts between its articles, outdated information, and inaccuries betwen feet and meters. They obviously have no idea what they are quoting. 636 meters and 2,064 feet are not the same thing! I suggest we stop using Emaar as a source and use www.BurjDubaiskyscraper.com because it is a much more reliable, accurate, updated, and clear source with thousands of pictures, videos, and links. Emaar gives us none of these pictures, diagrams or nothing.Maldek (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Emaar has not yet given an official height update of the Burj Dubai since 7 April. But, they did "let out" the height of the Burj Dubai in a press release concerning the amount of glass on the tower. Anything by Emaar is worthy of being used as a source. And of course there will be errors as the people that work at Emaar are humans, and (as I hope you know) humans make mistakes (both big and small) every day. As for the two different heights given in the cladding article by Emaar, clearly 636 m is the correct height while 2,064 ft is not. The height of 2,064 ft (629 m) was given on 7 April. As we all know, the tower has risen since then and I am sure that Emaar changed the height in metres but forgot to update the height in feet.
Also, as has been discussed before, www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com is not a reliable source even if it contains more information and images and such. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Maldek, you seem utterly confused by what the issue here is in terms of reliable sources. The problem is we have no way to assess the veracity of burjdubaiskyscraper.com. They simply post heights etc and declare those heights to be so. Well, how do we know that? And where do they obtain this information? We don't know. Additionally, we don't know how accurate they may or may not be. Some here simply declare it to be "more accurate," without suggesting how they arrive at that conclusion. And, because it is a blog site, we don't generally ascribe "reliable source" to them as they have no track record as a reliable news-gathering source. Indeed, as I did before, there were numerous clearly misleading and inaccurate bits of information posted on this supposedly "reliable" blog.

You seem to be conflating two distinct things: reliable sources; accurate sources. In terms of "accurate," I or you or burjdubaiskyscraper.com are not in a position to declare who has the most accurate information, because we have no way to ascertain that. In terms of "reliable," we generally go with the source closest to the event in question. And those are the builders themselves. The point is not whether they are accurate, the point is that they are the closest source we have with an established connection to the building in question. You may be 100 per cent correct in asserting that burjskyscraper.com is always completely accurate. But they can't be considered, for the purposes of wikipedia, a "reliable source," even if they are an "accurate" source. We'd have to go to a news source with an established history for that, and this website doesn't meet the criteria. But they have, as I have earlier shown, demonstrated sloppiness and posted wrong information.

Besides, putting aside your correct point about the faulty conversion to imperial, emaar and burjdubai.com do not contradict each other, as one cites a height from April 7, the other from May 12. One is simply a more updated height than the other and, probably lacking any interest in an Imperial conversion, they didn't bother to change the feet. Whoopee. And, since burjdubaiskyscraper.com posted a height of 630.5 meters on March 27, which is higher than the height of 629 m quoted by the skyscraper's own website 11 days later, are we to defer to the blog site by your logic? Why? Because they quote to the tenth of a meter? Canada Jack (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they removed a lunchbox or concrete pouring equipment.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Unlock it already

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Let's stop this bullshit nonsense. everyone KNOWS already that BD is already the tallest structure EVER at more than 650m tall... Not facing the facts and changing it immediately, is just pure denial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.210.133.237 (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Prove it. --Golbez (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The "bullshit nonsense" is from those who insist on posting heights which don't come from sources which we can cite. When we get a height from one of the sites we can use as a source, the height will be updated. The lock is in place because some here simply can't accept this simple rule. Canada Jack (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's prove it with this picture: [1] We have the concrete part (as we know 585,7 m high) and on it 10 floors of steel beams (each 6,4 m), with last floor just starting (single beam on top). That makes 585,7 m + 10 * 6,4 m = 649,7 m. Proved.--Stefan040780 (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Prove the concrete section is 585.7 m high; prove the steel beams are 6.4 m each. Unfortunately, even if the calculation is correct, that type of calculation is called original research and therefore cannot be used. It is not about "truth" but what data is verifiable and from reliable sources. Astronaut (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
...... That is all. CompuHacker (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is a new article [2] reporting a hight of 649 m "last week". Quote: "was last week measured at 649 metres tall.". THE REASON EMAAR HAS NOT YET MADE A BIG DEAL OF THE RECORDBREAKING HIGHT OF 649m IS BECAUSE OF A "HIGHER RANKING CONSTRUCTION WORKER's" DEATH. But as you can see in the article the tower IS reported to have a hight of 649 m. Now we have a reliable source!!! unlock please!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.130.176 (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2008

I dunno man, I think a reliable source requires at least 100 exclamation points. --Golbez (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked the author of that article of the National if he could give me a source we can cite and he answered it was a typo. JTLely (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If Emaar made a mistake about the feet of Burj Dubai how do we know they didn't make a mistake about the meters?

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Emaar claimed the Burj Dubai to be 636 meters and also 2,064 feet. Obviously we know that it is taller than 2,064 feet so we assume that Emaar made a mistake about the meters. Since 636 meters is equivalent to 2,087 feet. Isn't it then possible that since Emar made a mistake when they reported the feet that they also made a mistake when they reported the height in meters? As you say we are all human and humans to make mistakes. Since Emar made a mistake about the feet they could have also made a mistake about the meters. Maybe they meant 649.7 meters but they accidentaly wrote 636 meters. This could be very possible since we have already seen that they incorrectly added the wrong height for feet which they said was 2,064 feet. We're all human and make mistakes as you say, so why couldn't Emar make a mistake reporting the height in meters if in the same release they obviously made a mistake in reporting the height in feet. How do we determine what is a mistake? How do we know that Emaar didn't make a mistake in was trying to write 649.7 meters. They made a mistake in feet so they could also make one in meters. Who's to say? We all make mistakes.Maldek (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

2064 feet is 629 metres which is the height mentioned in a previous Emaar press release. Whilst I suppose it is possible they made a mistake in both metres and feet, the far more likely possibility is that they correctly updated the height to 636 metres and simply forgot to update the corresponding height in feet. This has already been pointed out previously here. Astronaut (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Gee, Maldek, perhaps they also reported an incorrect height when the conversion factor was correct! But it is not up to us to try to wade through who makes the more accurate claim here, we are simply reporting what was claimed by the closest sources. What can't you grasp here? Canada Jack (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As virtually every country outside the English-speaking world does not use the unit "feet" but the metric system, it seems unlikely that feet appear anywhere in the project but in English-language press releases and brochures. Thus one can be fairy sure that the height in meters is a (project-internally) well-known figure, while the height in feet is not, thus feet seems much more error-prone than meters. -- H005 (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it makes most sense to post the figure of 629m, given that this is what two separate official websites put it as. Uranium grenade (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Delay

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
9 months delay due to increase of floors:Emaar Properties announced on June 10, 2008 that construction of the Burj Dubai was delayed by upgraded finishes and will be completed only in September, 2009.afp.google.com, 'Finishing touches' delay world's tallest buildinggulfnews.com, Burj Dubai completion delayed by another eight to nine monthsFred Durie, the executive director of Emaar Properties reported the reasons for the delay: “We are going higher, and this is one of the reasons why the project is delayed.” The building’s final height, on completion, was kept a closely guarded secret. Burj Dubai would also have as addition, a massive Dh 800 million (US $ 217 m), new fountain, 275 meters long and will shoot water 150 meters (or 50 floors) into the air, in a show with music and 6,600 lights with 50 colored projectors.thenational.ae, Burj Dubai will grow additional floors--Florentino floro (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Burj Dubai will be 900 meters tall and is currently 638 meters tall

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Here my two sources that explains how the Burj Dubai will now be taller at 900 meters tall and that it is currently 638 meters tall. The Burj Dubai will take some extra time to build because it will be 900 meters tall instead of 818 meters tall. The builders want it to be taller so they are upgrading it with more floors making it 900 meters tall. It is currently 638 meters tall reported on June 9, 2008.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUjYv_0UfbV2zeRL5fUc5_EuwbNw

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20080609/BUSINESS/250508945/1001&profile=1001 Maldek (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

One of these sources states that the final height is unkown. You can't use both sources if one of them contradicts the other. timsdad 08:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The National published an a couple of days ago (see above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burj_Dubai#Unlock_it_already) where they stated the height was 649 metres last month. So, according to them, the tower now shrinked... what's more: they never mention what their source is. I don't think they are reliable.
Maldek, please put your ideas about a height update on the talk page first. This subject is controversial. Your point of view has proven numerous times to be without support. JTLely (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The other National article apparently contains a typo, as was admitted to User:JTLely. I think The National is a usually a reliable source - after all, they are a notable newspaper which employs professional journalists who are supposed to do proper fact-checkng before submitting their copy. However, their journalists are only human and quite capable of making mistakes. Or perhaps on that occasion, the journalist was running late so quickly checked with our own article here for the latest height, and instead got one of Maldek's flights of fancy? Astronaut (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

BASE jumpers already?

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

I came across this news report: Base jumper fined for plunging off Burj Dubai. Trivia, or worthwhile adding somewhere? Astronaut (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia. Fredwerner (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but it could be construed as a security "incident."--Hourick (talk) 06:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it could be worth adding to the article, seeing as it is rare for buildings under construction to be used by base jumpers. timsdad 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I also believe it should be included. I think they are interesting and notable events. But, it should not get its own section, of course. And there have actually been two incidents with BASE jumpers. One BASE jumper from France was caught before he was able to jump while another from Britain (on a different day) was caught after he had landed. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 05:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I just added that under a new Trivia section, but forgot to type in the description of the edit.Shamsi32 (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

New height as of 19 June 2008

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The Burj Dubai official website (http://www.burjdubai.com) has been updated. But, the height has not changed: it still is 636 metres tall, but the date is now 19 June 2008. Should we change the information (meaning the date) in the article or keep it the same since the height has not changed? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 05:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Last edited by Leitmanp (talk | contributions) at 05:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on which source is chosen to support the height claim. The current text says "As of 12 May 2008... 636 m (2,087 ft)..." and cites the 12 May press release from Emaar (which is mostly about the cladding). If we are going to cite http://www.burjdubai.com as the source for the height, then I think the article text should be changed to reflect what that site says (ie. to "As of 19 June 2008... 636 m (2,087 ft)..."). FWIW, I think we should keep the 12 May citation until a reliable source has something higher. Astronaut (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you implying that the Burj Dubai's official website is not reliable? We always used to use the official website for the current height. Anyway, how about mentioning the height as of 12 May and then saying as of 19 June it was the same? It is just an idea. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 17:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not suggesting that the official site is unreliable. Just that the article text should agree with whichever source is cited. I would be happy to see the article as it currently is (ie. citing the Emaar press release) until the official site, Emaar or some other reliable source publish a higher height. Astronaut (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that is fine with me. Thanks for the input. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 01:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The Emaar press release from June 17, 2008 states that it is "over 636 metres (2,036.6 ft)" and that "the final height of Burj Dubai will be revealed only on its completion in September 2009". --GrandDrake (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Undo my edits

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. After converting this article to a pdf, I noticed that the number of the buildings wasn't appearing in the pdf file. So I went into edit and put the numbers back where it was all missing. Unfortunately, now the article comes up with two numbers for buildings. Can someone please revert my edits, or let me know how I can undo them? Thanks. --MarinaKos (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)MarinaKos

In case you did not see, it has already been reverted. And if you want to revert edits in the future (only for reverting vandalism), you only have to go the the history page of the article. On the right of the edit summaries is an "undo" button. By selecting that, you will be able to revert only the edit to which the "undo" button is adjacent. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Burj Dubai not growing?

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is it reasonable to beleive that the Burj Dubai was 629 meters tall on April 7, 2008 and that almost 3 months later it has only grown 7 meters to become 636 meters? 7 meters in 3 months?Maldek (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It is quite reasonable that no reliable sources have updated the height in 3 months. Apparently, recent high winds have slowed the construction effort. Astronaut (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The Emaar press release from June 17, 2008 states that it is "over 636 metres (2,036.6 ft)" and that "the final height of Burj Dubai will be revealed only on its completion in September 2009". --GrandDrake (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Emaar posts the same height again for June 19,2008

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I just noticed that Emaar posted a height of 636 meters for the Burj Dubai on May 12,2008 and on http://www.burjdubai.com/ it lists a height of 636 meters for June 19, 2008. Why would Emaar post 636 meters for both May 12 and June 19? I think there must be something wrong with this source because it is hard to beleive that the Burj Dubai did not grow at all in over one month. Can anyone give me a reasonable explanation as to why Emaar would post 636 meters for the Burj Dubai on May 12, 2008 and then on their official website list 636 meters for June 19, 2008? Why would they update the height if it hasn't grown at all, and why hasn't it grown in over a month? anyone know? Thank YouMaldek (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Gee whiz, maldek, I work directly across the street from the CN Tower and it's not grown an inch in 30 years! What's so "unbelievable" about that? What is truly "unbelievable" is how some people harp on and on and on and on about a rather simple issue - what sources we can use. If you truly cannot accept that, you might be best to go elsewhere as that is how it works here. But here's a clue as to why we are likely to get fewer updates from now on, a press release from last week: Dubai, UAE; June 17, 2008: Burj Dubai, the world’s tallest building being developed by Emaar Properties PJSC, will be taller than previously envisaged, with height enhancement work already in progress. Construction of the two communication floors is ongoing and structural steel work has started. The final height of Burj Dubai will be revealed only on its completion in September 2009. Which also says something about the site you refer to a lot - the information they have, which you seem to think has authority is already outdated. All those diagrams of the levels? 205? Wrong. Which is a major reason we have these, to you, irritating rules. Canada Jack (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The Emaar press release from June 17, 2008 states that it is "over 636 metres (2,036.6 ft)" and that "the final height of Burj Dubai will be revealed only on its completion in September 2009". --GrandDrake (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Figured out the error in height reporting 636 meters instead of 663 meters.

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I couldn't understand why Emaar would post the height of 636 meters on June 19, 2008 when they already did that on May 12, 2008. Now I figured it out. Emaar was trying to say 663 meters as of June 19, 2008 but they got the 6 and the 3 switched so instead of saying 663, they accidentally said 636. Just like when they messed up earlier on their press release saying 2,064 feet which was not equal to 636 meters. It was just a mistake. It all makes sense because Emmar wouldn't quote the same exact height over a month later. They meant 636 meters. Here's the proof. On April 7,2008 the Burj Dubai was reported by Emaar as being 629 meters (2,064) feet. On May 12,2008 Emaar reported a height of 636 meters (2,064) feet. Notice that the meter is higher but the feet is the same as the previous height on April 7,2008. The same thing is going on here Emmar accidentally quoted the previous height of 636 meters when the meant 663. They got two numbers switched that's all. Hey that's okay mistakes happpen. We're all human it's no big deal people make mistakes. That's part of being human. Does anyone think this is a rational explanation to the occurence.Maldek (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a good assumption, but that doesn't mean we can go along changing the article. The source still states 636m, and until it is changed, the article cannot change either. timsdad 07:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You know Maldek, there may be an acceptable way out of this. If the Burj Dubai people stop issuing updates say, after three or four months - which is implicit in the recent press release and their desire to keep their ultimate height secret - there might be a good case to note what others claim the height to be. So, if September rolls around with the same old information, yet the tower is growing, I'd think it be okay to say something like "the builders have not updated the height of the tower since (whenever) but other unofficial sources suggest the tower has reached (whatever) m." I'd say we can only do this when it becomes clear they aren't going to update the heights. Canada Jack (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they mistook 6 for 9 and meant to put 639. Maybe they had fat fingers and hit the 3 instead of the 4. Maybe they put in the wrong number of feet and converted it to metres. Whatever the reasons are, I think a genuine mistake would have been quickly fixed. Any speculation though is just that. But replacing data from reliable sources with original research such as this is not the right thing to do (even if the reliable sources are somewhat out-of-date). Astronaut (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The Emaar press release from June 17, 2008 states that it is "over 636 metres (2,036.6 ft)" and that "the final height of Burj Dubai will be revealed only on its completion in September 2009". --GrandDrake (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

New Update PLEASE!!!!!!!

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Can we get a new update here PLEASE!!!! IT HAS BEEN TWO MONTHS SINCE THE LAST ONE. I AM TIRED OF THE SOURCE WEENIES, SAYING THIS SOURCE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH, THAT SOURCE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. I DON'T CARE, SOMEBODY JUST PLEASE UPDATE THE FREAKING ARTICLE.--Subman758 (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is your shift button stuck? Chillysnow (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Weenie: Here we have the height according to the closest sources. If that's not good enough, take a peek at one of the other sites mentioned here. Who knows where they get their heights from, but they are higher than quoted elsewhere. Happy? Canada Jack (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Would this count as original research?

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

There are blueprints of this tower floating around somewhere that show the 818m height and other heights in between. Could this count as a reliable source for updating the current height or are even the full plans of the tower not enough unless some guy talks about them? Rahmalec (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a direct link to these blueprints? --Golbez (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the recent press announcements from emaar that they have recently redesigned the top of the tower, I'd say there'd likely be no way to know if these are final designs or not. Canada Jack (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Are these are the same "plans", apparently created by Richard Braddish, that appear to be updated from time to time on the forums over at skyscrapercity.com? Astronaut (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Another approach to burjdubaiskyscraper.com (!vote)

Latest comment: 16 years ago16 comments10 people in discussion

With this edit, Maldek has attempted to introduce data from burjdubaiskyscraper.com again. I have reverted it for the moment, until other people here have had the chance to comment on whether it is a good idea to say there are other sources out there with a different height. Astronaut (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose - I think it is possibly endorsing an unreliable fan-boy site, which fails Wikipedia's reliable sources policy on a number of counts. It is also potentially confusing to readers. However, Maldek is correct in saying the official site has not been updated for 2 months, and I think that alone creates an urge on the part of some editors to put in a more up-to-date figure no matter where it comes from. Astronaut (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment; I am opposed to the inclusion for the reasons that it is not a reliable source and is original research on the part of burjdubaiskyscraper.com. But I will support it on the condition that the sentence mentions that the source is unofficial and that the accuracy cannot be guaranteed. And if we do include this height, it should be removed as soon as Emaar (or some other reliable/official/trustworthy source) provides an new, up-to-date height. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 05:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I've actually been suggesting this (see above) but I would hesitate to do this until more time has passed. I'd say if there has been no update for, say, four months, or if it is claimed that a significant height milestone has been surpassed (say 700 metres) then we make the note if no update has been forthcoming. But, agreed, there has to be a note as to the unofficial status of the site making the claim. I am still leery of the height claims especially since emaar has revealed a re-design of the spire thus suggesting that these accurate-to-the-tenth-of-a-metre reports from burjskyscraper.com may be wrong (if they base their height claims on the detailed plans they have somehow obtained). The basic problem is we have no indication as to where the numbers come from. Might mention that too. Canada Jack (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you are aware that Wikipedia's quality as an encyclopedia relies on having verifiable data from reliable sources. If you take the time to read back through the endless discussion about the reliablity of that source on this page and it's archives and take a look at the article history, you too might wish for a quick poll rather than yet another lengthy discussion. Astronaut (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose burjdubaiskyscraper.com is a fan site, or at least provides no reason to believe they are anything more than that. There is no explanation of who they are, how/why they maintain the site, nor how they get their measurements or other "facts". If the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat[3], Emporis.com, a news organization or some other reliable source cites burjdubaiskyscraper.com, THEN we could reconsider whether it is a reliable source. But until then, we should NOT just use it because it is the most recently updated.

We don't have to wait for Emaar to make an announcement. The builder/owner isn't the only or necessarily the best source of info for almost any building. This is the world's tallest building, and there are plenty of journalists, architecture professionals, and others watching it. Updates WILL appear on reliable sources like the ones I mentioned above (which btw are ALL still reporting 636m as the current official height).

Maldek and any other trigger-happy kids should BE PATIENT or just go outside and play. It is MUCH better to have this article be outdated and under-reporting the current height (while no reliable source is reporting it, either), than to post unreliable info as "fact" and risk potentially embarrassing sloppiness and errors if burjdubaiskyscraper.com is wrong. What do we lose by waiting for a reliable source to update the height? What's the rush?!?Fredwerner (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Another thought It's obvious that the data from the official BD site is wrong. Numerous photos show that BD has been increasing its height during last months, but the figure of 636 m remains unchanged. Let's use Emaar press release from June 17, 2008 as the source and write that the tower is "over 636 metres (2,036.6 ft)" and that "the final height of Burj Dubai will be revealed only on its completion in September 2009", and also note that some unofficial sources claim that the height is about 681.7 meters as of July 27, 2008. Droog Andrey (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Another thought It's obvious as well that the Burj Dubai already passed the Warsaw radio mast that collapsed in 1991. This final milestone to be achieved is still mentioned prominently in the article and should be nuanced I think. Although I would oppose to use height data from burjdubaiskyscraper.com (they are neither reliable nor verifiable), I think we should somehow change the current height section.

It should be mentioned emaar.com mentioned that the height of 636 metres was achieved already at May 12th already! The 19th of June is not the original source. See: http://www.emaar.com/MediaCenter/PressReleases/2008May12a.asp. The original source is better of course; after this date the building process continued. Adrian Smith expects the BD to top out in four or five months he mentions in an interview with Xpress on may 1st: http://www.xpress4me.com/news/uae/dubai/20007194.html.

I propose to divide the current height section in two parts. 1. The official, and outdated, official height measurement. At the moment emaar, besix, som, samsung, or the official website of BD for example can serve this purpose. The second section would nuance this official height measurement, by mentioning that this measurement is outdated and construction has continued from may 12th without periods of inactvity. If any other source provides a more or less reliable and verifiable height then this should be mentioned in section 2. This section can also serve for statements about dates of topping out or finishing the BD. At the moment no other source can serve for the purpose of giving a more recent height of BD. This may change however. The interview with Adrian Smith can be quoted, I would say, to be presented in this second section as well. --JTLely (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support We went through this argument months ago, where I pointed out that many people misinterpret what a reliable source is on wikipedia. Instead of engaging in discourse in that regard, a few people simply decided to be stubborn and just claim that I was wrong. Anyhow, here it is again: Citing your sources is something that must be done within a wikipedia article, but the article's cited sources do not have to cite THEIR sources. This is where many people get confused. A valid source is one that is reliable, unbiased, and has a history of fact-checking. burjdubaiskyscraper.com meets all three of these criteria, evidenced by the fact that they are a third party that has been perfect or near-perfect in their claims. FURTHER, a wikipedia's verifiability guidelines say that a reliable third party source is preferrable over a reliable first party source, because a third party is less likely to introduce spin or bias.--Galactoise (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Galactoise, how, prey tell, have you determined that the website "has been perfect or near-perfect in their claims"? I've noted discrepancies with what the official sites have stated and numerous errors in what burjdubaietc.com states. So, what do you base your claim that they are reliable? How do we know if the heights they post are accurate since they often do not match what the official sites post? Canada Jack (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


The central disagreement seems to be whether burjdubaiskyscraper.com qualifies as a reliable source. So I posted a query on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Of course, everyone here is welcome to weigh in. And I'm curious to see what some folks with no vested interest in our article say. Fredwerner (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Coming here from RS/N, I agree that burjdubaiskyscraper.com is probably not a reliable source and therefore shouldn't be relied on for disputed facts in Wikipedia articles. PubliusFL (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Current Records

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I saw in the Archives that there was a current records section, but I still want to know one of them. Does Burj Dubai beat The Pentagon for most office space[4]? And does that go off of square feet or overall volume? This may be of interest and notability. - Team4Technologies (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean just office space or total floor space? The Pentagon has the most floor space in the U.S. but isn't even in the top 5 globally. But either way, Burj Dubai won't be on that list. Its 344,000 square meters of total floor space "equates to a little over three Chrysler Buildings worth of space,"[5] or just over half the pentagon's 6.6 million sq. m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredwerner (talk • contribs) 18:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Architect shown in the Information Box

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think the firm of Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill Architecture should be shown in the Info Box to right, as the main architects for the Burj Dubai, not SOM. At the very least, his firm should be shown along with SOM.

This is consistent with the verbiage given in the main article.

Tony (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I just wonder

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Was the tower of Babel this tall, or was it taller?

I saw this thing, uncompleteted and I was left awestruck. Its so tall

I fly Cessna's and I would never worry about hitting any ground anything at 2000feet AGL Aaron Therubicon (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  • See Tower of Babel#Height of the tower and compare that to the Burj Dubai's current height of 636 m.
  • Yes it's tall.
  • There are already TV masts above 2000 feet AGL. For safety reasons, I suggest you consider the possibility of man-made obstructions up to 3000 feet AGL.
Astronaut (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burj_Khalifa/Archive_6&oldid=1136583818"