Talk:Burj Khalifa/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Some new sections.................

Here i want to suggest some new sections for this article..

• Facts of Burj Dubai
• Floor plans

What do you people think about it ???

Colossal (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the first one, Facts of Burj Dubai, would, I assume, be nothing but a trivia section. As an encyclopedia, 'facts' in Wikipedia articles should be included in the main body of the text, rather than in a section of bullet points, or a list. See WP:TRIVIA for more information.

As for the floor plans, if you can find any free-use floor plans, by all means add them and we'll go from there. --timsdad ^(talk) 11:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok i am agree with yous point of view. as fas as the the heading Facts of burj dubai is concerned we can add this in the main body of the text wht do you think ?

Colossal (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding the article already has plenty of facts about the building. If you have any more, share them here or add them to the article and source them. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This recent edit introduced information about the building's cost using the site burjdubaiskyscraper.com as a source. I was under the impression that that site was not considered a reliable source due to its user-created content and lack of sourcing information (which prevents verification). If it can't be reliably sourced, that piece of data shoul dbe removed. Astronaut (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That was my understanding too (see an above discussion), however I fixed the ref anyway. I think it's necessary that burjdubaiskyscraper.com be looked into again as it was a while back that it was decided the site was not reliable. --timsdad ^(talk) 22:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

More facts...

I am currently working on some facts of Burj dubai here, and soon i will disscuss them here.

Colossal (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Burjdubaiskyscraper.com

This site has always been in the external links section, but a spammer removed it and put "burjofdubai.com" in its place. Now I've corrected it, and then a person removes Burjdubaiskyscraper.com from the links section saying it is a spam site as well. Burjdubaiskyscraper.com is the largest website about Burj Dubai, has much more information and photos than all other sites put together, and mind you, this website has shared many of its photos with Wikipedia and information as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.36.147.55 (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It was this edit which added burjofdubai.com to the external links section, without removing the link to burjbubaiskyscraper.com. That site was removed much later because burjbubaiskyscraper.com is used as a reference, despite the opinion of myself and others that the site is an unreliable source - see two comments above and in many other places in the talk page and its archives. However, I am willing to listen to opinion reviewing the reliability of burjdubaiskyscraper.com Astronaut (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Astronaut, Wikipedia gets a lot of information from Burjdubaiskyscraper and photos (e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burj_Dubai_20090423.jpg) as well. This website has the most content about Burj Dubai, and you are saying it is not on-topic? And you are comparing it with a spam site with 10 pages of text copied from who knows where? Burjdubaiskyscraper is always up-to-date, and there are some rumours posted yes, but belive me, it has reliable information, more reliable than the official website in most cases.. Just go and check burjdubai.com for all the stupidy, and you don't remove it from Wikipedia because it is "unreliable source" do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.166.212 (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"...and you don't remove it from Wikipedia because it is "unreliable source" do you?" er... yes we do. Did you actually read the discussion about the use of burjdubaiskyscraper.com? Wikipedia relies on the verifiability of it's sources, and that site simply does not provide a means to verify what is written. The images shown on the site, don't need to be verifiable, they are pretty self evident, but if it wasn't for the explicit permission of Imre Solt those image wouldn't be usable here. Astronaut (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Astronaut, I'm not talking about the References, but External Links. If you believe that burjdubaiskyscraper.com does not provide any more information than the official websites and wikipedia, then feel free to remove it. However I will never agree with that. I see the sites link in External Links on various Burj Dubai entries in different languages (I haven't added them, and it wasn't even me who added the site to the english Wiki).

""...and you don't remove it from Wikipedia because it is "unreliable source" do you?" er... yes we do." - So why don't you remove Burjdubia.com from External Links? It is full of fake data (e.g.: tower is 800 meters tall), let alone that it is very much outdated. Burjdubaiskyscraper.com is the largest fan site and the only one that provides the latest news about it in various forms (excluding the forums of course). I really don't want to argue about it any further, do as it suggests in the Wikipedia guideline, if it is to remove one of the most valuable ontopic sites, then let it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.166.212 (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you have a point about external links, but let's have a reasoned discussion here.

I assume you mean burjdubai.com - I think that site should be an exception to the usual rules, it being the official site created by the property developer. Astronaut (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right about being official is essential to have, but why would not be an (the largest) unofficial site listed as well which offers much more content than the official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.166.212 (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you begin to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) at the end... poor SineBot must be gettting exhausted here.

Please don't use the excuse that many other Wikipedia articles have the link. There is an entire Wikipedia guideline article on this, but I cannot remember the page name. Maybe Astronaut can help us on that one... If it is decided here that the site is not reliable, then the link will be removed from the English article.

Also, I wouldn't exactly call "Current height: 800m" 'fake data'. The building has reached 800 metres, according to many sources. Clearly the official site, nor Emaar, have wanted to release the current, and possibly final height. --timsdad ^(talk) 00:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they'll do a Chrysler Building, lol. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Burj Dubai has reached 818m on 17.01.2009, I get daily information from people living there, also anonymous workers, who don't want their names to be exposed.. So 800m is not true, if they want to keep it in secret it should state "over 800m". Timsdad, we are now again confusing "Reference" and "External Links" I believe. 87.97.51.82 (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I know it has reached 818 metres, which means it has also reached 800 metres. As I said, the developers clearly don't want to display the final height just yet. And I don't know what you're talking about when you say we are confusing the References and External links sections. I didn't mention either of those. If the site is found to be unreliable, it should be removed from both sections. --timsdad ^(talk) 08:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The policy on external links is here. I notice it says that maybe we could use links which "...fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources", but it also says we should avoid a link which "...misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research...". I think burjdubaiskyscraper.com has the potential to be both. Astronaut (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Astronaut, as I'm an editor of burjdubaiskyscraper.com anything on the site you feel that "misleads" the reader would be edited. My point is still that just due to the large database it is a must have in the external links, and I'm sure Wikipedia visitors would agree with me. 87.97.99.52 (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the site has improved somewhat since the building has been topped out, and there's a good range of photos and videos. The more recent content is often attributed to someone (eg: "According to Ziad Makhzoumi, CFO of Arabtec...", and links to news articles like this) and that makes me think it would be acceptable. However, I then come across the first half of the facts page for example, and find timetables of progress and annotated photos (by Fury) and can't help but wonder where he got the figures and plans from - is he a worker on the site, has he just made it up? ... we just don't know and so it is "unverifiable research". On balance, I'm thinking that the site could stay in the external links section. Astronaut (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's sorted then. Burj Dubai Skyscraper.com will remain in the External links section but will not be referenced. I have removed the cost in the infobox, as its only source was the Facts page of burjdubaiskyscraper.com, which Astronaut pointed out, appears to be very unreliable. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Labour controversy

I am probably asking a slightly dumb question here (since I haven't really edited articles), but In the above mentioned section of this article, both the British pound and American dollar are used; isn't there a standard for an article (ie. should all the currencies mentioned in one article be the converted to the same?) 212.10.53.205 (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The British newspaper report (the source for the figures in March '06) uses pounds for the benefit of its British readers, though all amounts were probably reported to their journalists in UAE Dirhams. I have changed the "US$1 million" to "UK£500,000" to match what the reference says.

The figures for workers pay used to have a US$ conversion alongside, but that was removed because the exchange rate had varied quite dramatically since the newspaper story. Astronaut (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Burj Dubai facts

Here i want to add these facts to this article.

• Footprint of 8000 square meters, concrete is 3.7 m thick with 192 piles sunk to a depth of 50 m.
• Burj Dubai will have the world's fastest elevator - at a speed of about 60 kph.
• The tower will house one of the first armani hotels.
• Ten cranes and the world's fastest high-capacity constuction hoists - with a speed of up to 2m/sec (120m/min) are used to move men and material.
• The building service/fireman's elevator will have a capacity of 5,500kg and will be the world's tallest service elevator.
• Burj Dubai will be the first mega-high rise in which certaib elevators will be programmed to permit controlled evacuation for certain fire or security events.
• Parts of the tower reach upwards in a helical shape, with terraces, there are 26 in total.
• The Burj Dubai's observatory Elevators(double deck cabs) have a capacity for 21 persons on each deck and will have the world's longest travel distance from lowest to highest stop.
• The Burj Dubai observation deck located 442 meters above groubd will be the highest publicly accessible observation deck in the world.
• The curtain wall of the Burj Dubai will be equivalent to 17 football(soccer) fields or 25 American football fields.
• The tower's peak electricity demand is estimated at 36 mVA, equivalent to roughly 360,000 100-watt light bulbs all operating at the same time.
• The tip of the spire can be seen by a person 95 km (60 miles) away.
• At the peak cooling times, the tower will require approximately 10,000 tons of cooling per hour, which is equivalent to the capacity provided by 10,000 tons (22.4 million ibs or 10.2 million kg) of melting ice in one day.
• Burj Dubai will contain the world's highest elevator installation.
• The amount of rebar used for the tower is 31,400 metric tons,laid end to end this would extend over a quarter of the way around the world.
• The Burj Dubai's water system will supply an average of about 946,000 liters (250,000 gallons) of water per day.
• The building is expected to hold up to 35,000 people at any one time.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have references for these "facts"? - Team4Technologies (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes i have:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A few points to note:

Some of these facts are already in the article (eg: Fire evacuation by elevator, The first Armani hotel, etc.)

The Wikipedia manual of Style discourages the addition of lists of trivia. It instead advises that inforamtion should be incorporated into the body of the article.

Blogs are not considered reliable sources. Astronaut (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have been agreed above (in this discussion) that we would attempt to include the facts in the main body of the text. However, filling the article with too many random facts (some quite uninteresting to most readers) won't really work out, in my opinion. --timsdad ^(talk) 20:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I also think that sone of these facrs should be added in the text of this article, if we put all these dacts like a list so its looks awful, i have added afew of them in article.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Main Page

It seems likely Burj Dubai will open later this year. I think it would be a good idea to try to get this article up to standard to be the featured article on Wikipedia's Main Page on the day it opens. So how do we go about that? Astronaut (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Need More photos in gallery

Yes we need more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spore4ever (talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. A dozen photos is quite enough at this stage. Astronaut (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree. Galleries shouldn't have too many photos, that's what the Commons link is for. If you want to have a look at the previous discussions about decreasing the amount of images in the gallery, you can find them here and here. --timsdad ^(talk) 08:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, more photos would be an improvement. Wikipedia has had an anti-photo bias, since 2005, that favors more text and fewer images: for years, I've called it the "Word-ipedia" mindset, favoring words instead of images. Meanwhile, the world is moving toward video articles (combining numerous images with sound), so more photos is the trend, if done in logical groupings. Of course, the obvious problem with a Commons link is that those images tend to be in a random, chaotic order, with repeated views. The word-bias is not the only long-term bias in Wikipedia: disambiguation has been forced to dwell on identically spelled words, so that "aligned" and "alined" (same word) could be considered as 2 separate issues. Similarly, like the world moving to video, the world is also moving to consider titles to be a problem of similarly-pronounced words (not identical spellings) and similar concepts (not just the exact words). So, don't think the anti-photo bias is an isolated issue: Wikipedia has numerous biases that tend to limit the content of articles, and to limit searches to words, not images. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, video is a poor way to present encyclopedic information. It's great for "Dogs do the strangest things" or showing Madonna in concert, but unless you are going to make an entire documentary about the construction of Burj Dubai, it is pretty useless here. Replacing the words with videos, would mean you couldn't dip into the article as you wish, some video formats are poorly supported, translation would be a nightmare, free-text searching would be nearly impossible and I'm sure the increased storage requirement would quickly exceed the Foundation's ability to pay for it. Not only that, but the licensing of video content, like images, is a legal minefield. Words are usually free, good quality images and video are rarely free. Astronaut (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am also puzzled by what you mean about disambiguation. In the example you mention, align and aline are unrelated homophones, though perhaps someone with poor spelling might spell "align" without the "g". Astronaut (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture Update?

I see that the main picture for the Burj Dubai is from March 20, 2009. That’s about 4 months and a week ago. Does anyone think that the photo should be updated as a significant amount of work must have been done in the past 4.25 months? Please let me know. Thank You.Eronel189 (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a good quality image that we can use, upload it. Astronaut (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've taken about fifty, but as I visited Dubai in the summer, it's very smoggy and hazy around there, so none of my pictures are of particularly good quality. For this reason, I'm not sure that you'd be able to find many recent images of good enough quality. I'll upload one or two of my best photos and link them here, however, they probably aren't good enough for an infobox photo. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, my two best images (I emphasize the "best") are:

• File:Burj Dubai 29 June 2009.jpg (the sun is behind the building, so it's not the best quality)
• File:Burj Dubai 29 June 2009 obstructed.jpg (taken from the other side, so better quality, but only three quarters of the building can be seen. If necessary, the image can be rotated slightly).

--timsdad ^(talk) 08:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It is now the 28th of June and the last picture was in April! The building is going to be opened in 3 months so it cannot be that no-one's taken a picture of the Burj Dubai in two months.I'd have added a picture myself but I do not live in Dubai so I cannot take a picture, and all the pictures on google come from wikipedia! can any Dubayan guy please take a picture and add it to wikipedia? it's driving me nuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.179.22 (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Might I let you know it's not that easy to take a picture unless you really go out of your way to get a good one. For most of the day, (when the sun is behing you) the only good angles are from the main highway, where the view is mostly obstructed by other buildings (the second photo above). The top photo above is from the other side, with the sun behind the building. This is a nice, easy, accessible place to take photos from, as it's just outside The Dubai Mall. However, the sun is not lighting up the building so good photos are difficult to produce. Most of the photos you see of Burj Dubai are from somewhere completely out of the way, or near enough to the building but are only good quality when not taken in summer (see above for a brief explanation of this). As it's currently summer, I doubt any amateur photographers like myself would be able to get great photos of the building. Serious photographers with good cameras who really want to go out of their way to get a nice photo is who you should be asking. --timsdad ^(talk) 10:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

TBH, there doesn't seem to be much progress between the current infobox image, and the one taken by Timsdad a month ago - a little more cladding just below the spire as far as I can tell. Maybe the construction team are busy working on the interior? Astronaut (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait one more month, then the cladding will be complete and perhaps someone will take a good photo --Stefan040780 (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say this is a great picture to make as the burj dubai photo [[5]] --A9l8e7n (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, it's an interesting angle but would be pretty poor as the lead photo. Astronaut (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The pic that is there as of now is even poorer. They building is to small in that picture, and there are a couple building that you can see on the right of it which ruins the symmetry. If you would ask me I would say that we need a picture closer up to represent how big the building is.--A9l8e7n (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the current infobox image is not the best, and that the previous infobox image was better, but it is from March. However, I don't like this closeup as an infobox image...A full shot of the building gives a much clearer view of its size and shape. Quite the contrary to your comment, I believe this closeup doesn't represent the sheer height of the building as well as a shot from a longer distance. --timsdad ^(talk) 01:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i agree with that, but it seemed better than the current picture. If we had a recent picture with the same angle and distance as the march one it would be the best. But, we only need to be patient because once all the cladding is done (which should be soon) I have a feeling we will find the perfect picture, no doubt. --A9l8e7n (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a beautiful picture to put instead, it is updated, and the buidling takes up most of the picture. [6] Please consider this picture, the march one is very outdated. No need to worry about putting this one on cuz it is decent quality. --A9l8e7n (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Opening on 2nd December 2009.

Now it is official that burj dubai will open on 2nd december to coincide with UAE National Day.

see here [7]

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Elevator speed 10, 16.7, or 18 m/s?

The Current records section lists the Burj Dubai elevators as the world's fastest at 16.7 m/s. But the referenced external site [8] actually reports them at 18 m/s. The website of the elevator manufacturer Otis Elevator Company [9] states the Burj Dubai will have "The fastest elevator, a double-deck, will travel at the rate of 1,969 feet per minute (10 meters per second).". This is also mentioned in the Wikipedia section Architecture and design. The speed of 10 m/s (or even 16.7 m/s) will not be the fastest elevator, as the Taipei 101 building has the current record at 16.83 m/s. Other external websites list various Burj Dubai elevator speeds, some as high as 18 m/s which would break the current record. It is not clear which elevator speed should be listed in this article since external references vary. CuriousEric (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course there will be more than one elevator. I'm only speculating here, but perhaps it is possible some express elevators will achieve 18 m/s while the heavier double deck elevators will only achieve 10 m/s. Astronaut (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Breakdown of floors

I have found a link, where the breakdown of floors of burj dubai is mentioned soon i will paste it on this article, while the total number of mechanical floors is also mentioned...

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple of problems: I think the list would be better presented in the reverse order (it is like that in the source). The top floor is 160, not 206. Astronaut (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Having looked again, I think the table is too long and some explanation of what makes a "mechanical" floor would be useful. Maybe the same info could be expressed by ignoring the presence of mechanical floors and the observation deck, and simply saying:

"The Armani Hotel will occupy the first 39 floors, floors 43 - 108 will be occupied by <quantity> residental apartments, and floors 111 - 154 will be occupied by offices. Parking for 16,000 will be available in the two basement levels and a publically accessible observation deck will occupy the 124th floor. Telecommunications and transmission equipment will occupy floors 156-159. Mechanical floors, containing <explain purpose of mechanical floors>, will occupy floors 4, 17-18, 40-42, 73-75, 109-110, 136-138, 155, 160 and the spire."

I'm sure we can come up with a better wording than my explanation above. Astronaut (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

We can omit the mechanical floors from the table and simply can mention below the table about mechanical floors, and observation deck how is it ?

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Random facts

Despite the discussions above, Nabil rais2008 has recently gone about adding some more random facts to the article. To avoid listing them, they are simply written one after the other in sentence form (e.g. "When Burj Dubai completes, 32,000 people will live or work there. The curtain walling of Burj Dubai is equivelant to 17 football fields.The concrete in the structure is equivalent to 100,000 elephants.The air conditioning system of Burj Dubai will produce 20 Olympic swimming pools worth of condensation every year to irrigate the surrounding landscape. And on a clear day, one will be able to see for 50 miles, from the observation deck on the 124th floor of Burj Dubai.") Unless these facts are redistributed amongst related sections, I don't think they really have any place in the article. --timsdad ^(talk) 10:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Some of these facts sound very much like the kind of thing a newspaper will include to help people who find "x,xxx,xxx m² of curtain walling" confusing. I suppose someone will find "the steel used could have built a double-track railroad from here to Pennsylvania" (actually, that's in the tourist information leaflet for the Empire State Building) or some other ways of expressing large quantities for the common man. While "elephants", "olympic swimming pools" and "football fields" are common replacements for kg, m³ and m² in such info leaflets and newspaper articles, they are also rather imprecise (eg: elephants an weigh as little as 3,500 kg and as much as 12,000 kg, how deep are the swimming pools, and code of football should be used?) I think the only one worth keeping is about the visibility from the observation deck. Astronaut (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of these sentences are unencyclopedic as they do not refer to something verifiable. Elephants, football fields and Olympic swimming pools are not valid units. I feel that nearly everything should be cut. The observation distance is speculation (no member of the public has actually observed this), the other figures are with children's book units, and the 32,000 people claim is unsourced. Is there reason to keep any of this? —fudoreaper (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

what are the mechanical floors????!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidahearn (talk • contribs) 18:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Floors in Burj Dubai exceeds 200

Burj dubai have total occupied floors of 162, while the remaining floors are for mechanical use.As it is mentioned in [10]. you can see in this diagram here, [11],

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It is already well established that there are 162 floors (that's 160 floors plus 2 basement levels). To suddenly contradict the infobox by adding another 40 floors is obviously wrong. To call the tiny 2 m² landings that are inside the spire, "floors", is quite a stretch of the imagination.

Also, the unsourced diagram has incorrect info and is probably based on the same original research as proved so problematic with burjdubaiskyscraper.com. Astronaut (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Which photos should be kept in the construction gallery?

I have reduced the number of photos in the construction gallery to 8 photos. I made this section to see if there is consensus on whether 8 photos is the right number for the construction gallery and to discuss if these are the photos that should be kept. I would like to make sure that the construction gallery is concise enough that it is kept even after a normal gallery is added to the article. --GrandDrake (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the reduction of the amount of images, once it's completed a new gallery will probably pop up with photos and we can't have two huge galleries cluttering up the article. I don't think we should remove the construction gallery when completed, seeing as Burj Dubai will have become the tallest building in the world by 300-odd metres (what I'm trying to say is, the construction is a big step forward in skyscraper construction). The images you have kept appear to be a good selection; each a good time apart and varying in angles and scenery. I'm happy with it. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect tense in Construction section

Since most of the construction phase is over, several paragraphs of this section are written on incorrect tense. Can someone fix it? Thanks, Alpertron (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The timeline has false info that the cladding is complete.

I just checked this morning and i found out that it really wasn't based of the burj dubai website http://www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com/. I just wanted to let you guys know.--A9l8e7n (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a tricky one, because BurjDubaiSkyscraper.com isn't actually the official site of Burj Dubai. There are many discussions above that question the reliability of the info on the site. From the gallery on the site, however, I am inclined to believe the cladding has not been finished, but most of us would agree to use a news source over BDS any day. What are some others' thoughts? --timsdad ^(talk) 02:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It its hard to say, maybe those pictures in the gallery are outdated, but why would they be lying. It is not a big deal though, because even if it isn't finished it will be finished in a weeks time, i just don't like to see info that possibly might be false--A9l8e7n (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I have no big reason to disbelieve what BurjDubaiSkyscraper.com says, the photos in the gallery are not precisely dated. They could have been taken on 30 Sept, but not uploaded until 2 Oct. Alternatively, Maktoob.com could be optimistically reporting something that will happen "today", but then again it does appear to quote Emaar themselves. It is a tough one to call. Like Timsdad, I would prefer to base what is written in the article on reliable news sources. Astronaut (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Tallest in the world?

Recent edits by 76.238.4.168 have reminded me of a few issues that were not discussed when Burj Dubai was topped out. It appears we have agreed that it has a place on the List of tallest buildings in the world completed list, yet it's not mentioned anywhere in this article that it's the tallest building in the world. Does Taipei 101 no longer hold the title? The caption in the Taipei 101 article's infobox still says that it's the tallest building since 2004 with a note reading "Fully habitable, self-supported, from main entrance to highest structural or architectural top". Does "fully habitable" mean that Burj Dubai is not the tallest as it's not yet habitable? What are our thoughts... --timsdad ^(talk) 06:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the CTBUH's guidance is that the building should be open and fully habitable before it is officially declared the tallest in the world. The article actually mentions the reasons for this decision:

"...We will not classify it as a building until it is complete, clad and at least partially open for business to avoid things like the Ryungyong [sic] project. Taipei 101 is thus officially the world's tallest until that happens."

Therefore, I think we should be very careful with declarations like "Burj Dubai has been the world's tallest building since 2009", and I have reverted that edit. The List of tallest buildings in the world has a footnote stating that it is merely topped-out, not completed (along with several other buildings in that list); and List of tallest buildings and structures in the world also notes that Burj Dubai is topped-out. Astronaut (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

According to [12], Tapei 101 still holds the record. Since CTBUH is the authority on this sort of thing, oughtn't we to remove the records section at the end?Ug (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

New Picture to Show complete Exterior of the Building

I was wondering Wikipedia has been saying for about a Month Since October 1st that the exterior work of the Burj Dubai has been completed. That’s fine and all, but since its been about a month since the exterior cladding of the building has been completed wouldn’t it be nice if somebody could upload a picture showing a render of the completed building. I have never seen one, but if the building’s exterior has been completed for an entire month there should be one by now. Anyone have any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.186.94 (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a good quality image, feel free to add it to the article. Be careful though, make sure we have the right to use the image (a free image is easiest), make sure the composition is good, make sure it is well exposed, in focus, without watermarks, etc. Astronaut (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Square footage of floor space

Most discussions about large buildings include some prominent mention of floor space. That would be really helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.1.49 (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This infobox does say that the floor area is 334,000 m2 (or 3,595,100 sq ft). As Burj Dubai isn't famous for its floor area or its general size, but its height, there isn't much information around regarding the floor area. When completed I'm sure some sources will pop up allowing us to discuss it in the article. --timsdad ^(talk) 02:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

TV and radio stations

What stations will broadcast off that big worthless thing? I find none listed and the video of the guy on top makes it look like there are no antennas; and it's still hatch-sized at the top which appears to be flat. Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think there are going to be any broadcasts from the tower, I don't see why there has to be? --timsdad ^(talk) 06:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is apparently "telecommunication equipment" in the spire (levels 156 - 159). Whether that includes TV/radio stations, I have no idea. Astronaut (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't no... just. Why wouldn't there be? Can we get an official number on the sway of the building; 8 feet sounds a little extreme. I'd believe the top might sway 3 or 4 feet peak to peak in a stiff breeze. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the increase in wind speed with altitude (where energy = wind speed²) combined with the decrease in width to the top could make the value much higher than you'd expect given all previous precedents? There are no occupied floors in much of the top after all. Just a guess, I have no idea how many feet the sway is. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Willis/Sears Tower

What is the appropriate way to name this building in the Burj Dubai article? - Team4Technologies (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You'll find that there are four mentions of the tower in the article, two as Willis Tower and the other two as Sears Tower. As it has officially undergone a name change, the name Willis Tower should be used everywhere except in specific instances where an event before the renaming is being discussed. The two Sears Tower mentions are both in the timeline section, where it is appropriate to refer to it as the Sears Tower when Burj Dubai surpassed it, as that is what it was known as at the time. --timsdad ^(talk) 01:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Building sway

In the article it says the building sways up to 5 feet, but the source of that is from before the building was even near it's final height. It said it was predicted that the building would. Can we get an "official" statistic on it? It seems like someone must know. It's been up long enough for there to have been some stiff breezes over there. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

We're likely to have access to a lot more information once its opened early next year. --timsdad ^(talk) 04:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

here.--Louiedog (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The top will sway back and forth up to about a dozen feet, which is typical for buildings of this size, but unnoticeable because it’s so gradual.

1.5 meters.

Bootleg video/cell camera's/etc.

What really surprises me is the TOTAL lack of video of the thing; I mean good video; like inside of it and such; even though the workers are low class; come on everyone has a cell phone; it just surprises me that there seems to be NO good civilian/worker video. Of all those people working on it and as popular as it is. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Patience Daniel. I'm sure someone will film inside once it's open next month. That said, have you ever seen cell-phone videos? I am pretty convinced that a shaky amateur video with that weird gurgling sound that you get from a cell-phone, would be a poor way to show the interior. Astronaut (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I did take a look on YouTube. Here's a recent one but it's just a set of stills set to music. This one is actually video and shot from the top of the spire by one of the engineers. Astronaut (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow that first one has a lot of good pics; but seriously; there must be some "gag order" or secrecy thing about pictures and recording. Conme on; there is not ONE video that looks like it was "not supossed to be shot". Like a cool "behind the scenes" video. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's just one of the advantages of using indentured, underpaid, slave labourers. Being paid less than $10 a day, and forced to work extremely long shifts before returning to their heavily-guarded tin shed "sleeping quarters" without any electricity, they can't really upload any "cool behind-the-scenes videos". I know it's a real bummer. You have no idea the hellish conditions endured by the workers on this building. 110.32.144.39 (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12