Talk:Burj Khalifa/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Change in Name

Someone recently changed the name of the artical and on the top of the page changed it from "Burj Dubai" to "Burj Khalifa". Yet at other points in the artical it is still called "Burj Dubai". Unless there is a source too support the name change I believe it should be changed back. Could this be listed as vandalism?

SashaJohn 8:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The name of the building was indeed changed at the opening ceremony. This is currently an ongoing event. I would not revert changes until all the information is in, and we can further clean up this article. I suspect that the consensus will be to use "Burj Dubai" for all references to a time before 4 Jan 2010, and "Burj Khalifa" afterward. This is similar to what was done for the renaming of "Sears Tower" to "Willis Tower" in 2009. Chelos

Heh, it also appears that someone changed the status of the tower from "supertall structure/tower" to "supertall donkey" Esperman (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Nevermind, it got changed back...

Okay :) But does anyone support putting the artical on protection? It looks like the info box has been destroyed lol.

Edit: The infobox is back. But still since it's opening today its going too be getting a lot of attention, so like I said before should it be on temporary protection? SashaJohn 10:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would support placing this article on protection. There is a lot of cleaning up to do, especially in the naming being changed back and forth between Khalifa and Dubai. Currently, there is no apparent logic to the naming throughout the article. As I said before, we should keep it as "Dubai" for references prior to 4 Jan and Khalifa for references that are either "ongoing" or post 4 Jan. Chelos

Sears-Willis Tower Precedent. The Sears Tower renaming ordeal set the precedent on Wikipedia that when well-known supertalls are renamed, they are referenced according to the name at the time of the given historic event being described. For current and ongoing events, it is the official name of the building at the time of the edit being made. --RKrause (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. In terms of making a readable article, it make no sense to switch between "Burj Dubai" and "Burj Khalifa" within this article. The naming should be consistant throughout. Obviously, we should not break links to other articles, or change the titles or URLs of references, nor should we change the wording of past quotes. Astronaut (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to disagree. But that doesn't change the fact that there was a long drawn out debate in re the Sears Tower article that effectively established the aforementioned precedent for official designations of supertalls. Operating counter to the conclusion that was finally reached in that discussion, doesn't make Wikipedia a very consistent resource (nor does it simplify editing). --RKrause (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In the bolded name of the article in the intro, "Bin" is capitalized. Shouldn't this be lowercase, to fit the style of the person it's named for? And also, I disagree that this is at all similar to the Sears Tower matter - this building was under construction, and upon opening was named Burj Khalifa. It's not like it was Burj Dubai for 30 years, then renamed because someone else bought the rights. So since Burj Dubai was, apparently, a 'working title', I have no problem at present changing all relevant references to Burj Khalifa; saying "the Burj Dubai became the tallest structure ever..." wouldn't really work. But, as Astronaut said, we obviously can't change urls and quotes and statements about the Burj Dubai name itself. --Golbez (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Who determines whether it was a "working title"? That seems a rather frivolous assumption. From what I understand Burj Dubai was the official intended name for the building up until the past few weeks. Statements such as "Emaar Properties announced on 9 June 2008 that construction of Burj Khalifa was delayed by upgraded finishes and would be completed only in September 2009" are unecessarily confusing for purposes of historical reference. In 2008, Emaar Properies announced the "Burj Dubai" -- not the "Burj Khalifa". And yes, the renaming occurred immediately following completion, but that doesn't change the fact that the developer was promoting it with good intend to maintain the name Burj Dubai. Furthermore, the official domain name of Emaar to promote the property is Burjdubai.com which incidentally is entitled "Burj Dubai" and has yet to be updated. I think these are all points that must be taken into consideration if we are to make a determination as to whether Burj Dubai was nothing more than a "working title". --RKrause (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I might stand corrected as to whether BurjDubai.com is an official site of Emaar. But I stand by my other arguments. --RKrause (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is the official website... If one visits the Emaar website they can find links to the "Burj Dubai" website which is "currently over 800 metres". --timsdad ^(talk) 03:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what is decided regarding name usage, there needs to be *some* mention of the name change in the article, esp wrt the reason, ie, Abu Dhabi's bailout of the project. 99.140.209.67 (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

vandalism in Purpose section

Well, someone corrected the text while I was trying to write up this comment. I saw it there, but didn't copy it to show it here. How was it removed? When I went to edit it out, I couldn't see it . . . had it already been removed then? Ed8r (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the change from "...nine hotels such as the Burj Dubai Lake Hotel & Serviced Apartments" to "...nine hotels such as the Burj Khalifa Lake Hotel & Serviced Apartments", then back to "...Burj Dubai" version and finally "...nine hotels such as The Address Downtown Burj Dubai"? That was me trying to correct someone else's change of "Burj Dubai" -> "Burj Khalifa" which messed up a wikilink, being reverted (and falsely accused vandalism), and finally (after 3 successive edit conflicts!) getting it to link to the correct place and avoid a redirect as well. Sorry if it was a confusing few minutes. Astronaut (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I was talking about something along the lines of "has been designed to take the money from the poor and put it in the pockets of the rich (etc.) be the centrepiece . . . [emphasis on vandal insert I added] I don't have the exact wording because that's what I couldn't see when I clicked on "Edit." Ed8r (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it was probably removed between when you saw it and when you clicked Edit. --Golbez (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Better Photos

Can we get a better main photo than what is there now? It's pathetic quality photo (out of focus or blury due to motion, dust on the sensor, noisy sky). I am sure there are better photos of the building than this pathetic quality 98.156.84.149 (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a fair use or copyright free image that you own or would be allowed too put up, then feel free to :) At the moment the one at the top of the page seems nice (If its still there) and is recent. I think their good :)

SashaJohn 11:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

98.156 is right though. The current picture, when viewed at full size, is pretty poor. Some of the earlier pictures (from Jan and March 2009) are better, though the building was still covered in cranes at that time. Astronaut (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I kinda see it now. I still think it's a good photo even in full size, but agree that we could use something a little better (When viewing one in full size). I have high quality photo's of it from my trip too Dubai, but that was in 2008 so don't think those will be good lol. I will try and see what I can find online :)

SashaJohn 11:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • All images on [[1]] are licensed as GFDL you can copy any over to commons and use them here... Check File:Burj_Dubai_20081019.jpg to see how the licensing is done.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Burj Kalifa comparison is missing Willis Tower (Sears Tower)

Can we add this, please? Thx  uriel8  (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

After reading the article through, I'm inclined to agree the Sears-Willis Tower should be included in the diagram. There seem to be enough references to it. And countless news articles cite similarities and comparisons between the two buildings. So why in the world leave it such a mystery for readers to figure out? --RKrause (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Typographical Errors. I noticed a few typographical errors within that diagram. For one, it is "Empire State Building" not "Empire State". Furthermore, it was officially "World Trade Center" not "World Trade Centre". I can appreciate whomever took the time to design this graphic, but I think it's important to verify the names of the buildings being included before publishing it. --RKrause (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you see the talk page of this image you'll see that I have already brought up these errors and have received support from another editor. --timsdad ^(talk) 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I had never used Inkscape in anger before :-) New diagram uploaded to File:BurjKhalifaHeight.svg and added to the article. It includes the Willis Tower, spelling corrections, and I managed to keep the Pyramid and Eiffel Tower by moving the outlines closer together. As for the suggestion that Burj Khalifa should be in black, I decided to keep it red because it it the building which is the subject of the image and article. Astronaut (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, I appreciate the effort you went into to fix up the image. --timsdad ^(talk) 13:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

most floors, yes, but wtc didn't hold title before, did it?

it says that this building has the most floors and that the previous record-holders were the wtc buildings, but the list of tallest structures page on wiki says that another building has 118 floors. am i missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aptpupil79 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked at list of tallest structures and found no mention of a building with 118 floors. Please clarify where you saw this. --Golbez (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The International Commerce Centre has 118 floors, but it's not quite finished yet. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This article might help. The International Commerce Centre has been topped out. --timsdad ^(talk) 23:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the CTBUH, the ICC is not officially a building until it is open and ready for occupancy. So the 118 floor count is not relevant at this time. --RKrause (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The previous record holder of most floors is the Willis Tower and the article has been changed to reflect this. The previous mention of the WTC is pointless seing as those buildings haven't been around for more than 8 years.

I'd still call it relevant, as it was the well-known limit for number of floors that can be made by a human (well voluntarily, anyways) for over a third of a century. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say someone not bothering to make more is relevant but if a place can be found for the fact then that's fine, but that place certainly isn't in the records section. raseaC^{talk to me} 12:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning that. But if no one thinks the previous holder of the most number of floors ever record which Burj broke is important enough to mention in the listing of records Burj broke, then hmm. We mention the Warsawa mast record even though it was destoyed before Burj existed, after all. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the record section should only list the records held by the building and the buildings which it surpassed to gain those records. Any others inconsistencies should be corrected too. raseaC^{talk to me} 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Further: the Warsaw mast is referring to the tallest ever made and so is correct. raseaC^{talk to me}

Wouldn't your logic wish to not mention the Warsawa mast since Burj Dubi/Khalifa never had to beat that to become the tallest manmade structure in the world? Either that, or 110 was the most floors architecture had made up until then (a longstanding record actually), and 108 was the most floors existing by the time Burj was being constructed? I don't see how both are not of note. (the Burj design is much taller and further along in construction than than ICC ever did, so even if just the floor existing was enough for you it's still got it beat. so we don't have to mention that one..) We mention the very nice vertical concrete pumping record too, beating the number of stacked floors in the human architectural record is less obscure. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It had to beat it to become the tallest structure ever (not emphasis) built and therefore is noteworthy in the record section. Like I said, i'm not arguing against including any info, I'm just arguing for it to be in the correct place. raseaC^{talk to me} 16:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that eventually "ever" would get non-notable while the current record holder (if different) is still not but I don't think this is there yet. Otherwise this seems a direct parallel to "tallest" & "tallest structure (ever)". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mysterious SUDDEN 10 meter height increase

How did the height go from 818 to 828 over night; the same night as the name changed. Did they stick a 10 meter spire out at the last minute like they thought the chrysler Building people were gonna do to end the height record of the Empire State Building in their competition? Remember how the Empire was gonna be just a tiny bit taller than the Chrysler Building at first, then they added the dirigible hat thing at the top. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

AND, and, there is NOTHING written about the sudden change within the article. wtf? Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The final height was unknown and just an estimate until the opening, when Emaar released the actual height. 208.120.96.170 (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's funny how it was written right in the beginning of the article for so long like it was just truth. It never said anything about being an estimate; and anyone wonders why Wikipedia has such a credibility issue....

Anyway, how high is the 160 floor? I think I once knew and I also figured it out that it has the exact floor to floor average height of buildings; 13 feet per floor. I can't believe the highest floor "regular" people have a chance in Hell at getting to is only 124 or 125 or whatever; and the last THOUSAND feet is mechanical, broadcast etc. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, broadcast? So will there be some stations there after all? From the looks of the "view from the spire" video there is still a considerable amount of gauge at the top of the spire and it would be easy to add a 10 or 20 meter extension such as an antenna on top. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Until earlier today, all the reliable sources we had access to, said 818 m, and the article did mention that the final height was a closely guarded secret that wouldn't be announced until the opening. I first saw the actual height of 828 m (and the name change) on the BBC as the opening ceremony was being broadcast this afternoon. When the furore has died down a little, I might get around to adding a bit about the late height change.

As for the height of the top floor, 13 ft per floor (or 3 m per floor, or whatever measure you care to guess at) is an unreliable measure. Until official figures are announced, I have commented-out the height of the roof and top floor from the records section.

It's true, the observation deck could have been put on the top floor, but that floor has a small area and a very high rentable value - an area that would have limited visitor numbers and generated lengthy queues, and a rentable value that probably exceeds the potential revenue from gawping tourists. Putting the observation deck on the 124th floor was probably a sensible commercial decision by Emaar.

Since the concrete structure ends with the highest commercial office on the 154th floor, and concrete was pumped to 606 m to construct this floor, I estimate there is a further 222 m (728 ft) of steel structure for mechanical, broadcast, etc. above this. Astronaut (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Goethe

Does anyone think the 828 meter height was accidentally arrived at? I don't. It's Goethe's birthday and Goethe is supposed to have had the "highest" IQ ever achieved. Isn't this a relevant fact to include? Let me hear others' thoughts.Richard Barnett "Dick" Bloom 21:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbbloom (talk • contribs)

When you added it to the article, I discarded it as humorous vandalism. Now I'm not sure. Yes, I think everyone in the world, apart from you, thinks it has nothing to do with Goethe. --Golbez (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Goethe was born on 28 August, but in Dubai dates are expressed in the british format with the day first. Perhaps if the building was 288 m tall then I could see something in this. Astronaut (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting fact, Astronaut, but completely out in space. Goethe is often called "the first modern man" and modernity is a quality the more affluent Muslim countries aspire to. Oil-rich Arabs are plugged into the same influences that you and I are: their architects wouldn't even have had to know the significance of 828 to design the building that way.... As for why I came up with this, I've been an enthusiastic student of German literature for forty years and just happened to have consulted the, yes, Wikipedia! article about Goethe last week, noticing that his birthday coincided with an old friend's.Richard Barnett "Dick" Bloom 14:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbbloom (talk • contribs)

Personally, I think it's ridiculous that such a strange origin for the height could exist. Before we go including "facts" like this, we might need to find some sources from developers/experts. It's almost as silly as all of those references to "9/11" that popped up. --timsdad ^(talk) 14:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to seem stuffy but it's only "strange" to the illiterate. "Close thy Byron; open thy Goethe," said Thomas Carlyle. If you only knew how revolutionary a figure Goethe was. His life, and especially his longer works, grappled with sexual and philosophical issues not taken up by others for another century and a half, and only then after Sigmund Freud had chastised the world repeatedly for being such hypocrites. Modern psychology was literally invented by Goethe. ... HOWEVER, it IS debatable whether the allusion to Goethe should be made overt in an encyclopedia; such a fact belongs in the many books that will be written about this building, and perhaps ought to be withheld until it appears there, as it inevitably will. BUT from a critic's standpoint, whether or not the reference to Goethe was intended by the architect is actually irrelevant. The building is a work of art, surely--quite an impressive one, I think--and great works of art must always be critically evaluated on as many levels as exist to its viewers; few are ever actually within the consciousness of the artist himself. Artists KNOW much of their creativity is unconscious. THAT, in fact, was one of Goethe's singular contributions to modernity: regard for the "demonic" (unconscious) creative urge!!Richard Barnett "Dick" Bloom 00:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbbloom (talk • contribs)

Tell you what, you find an architect for the Burj Dubai who has stated on the record that it was made 828m specifically because of Goethe, and we'll include it. Til then, there's zero chance of this even being entertained. --Golbez (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and look up the civility guidelines. Calling someone illiterate because they disagree with you is way off. It could be akin to, oh, someone calling you crazy for possibly thinking this was true. --Golbez (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. In my opinion, it is largely a coincidence and we must treat it as such until confirmation from the architect. --timsdad ^(talk) 01:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Anybody who thinks an aesthetic reference to Goethe is "ridiculous" is illiterate and I can find several thousand professors of literature to agree with me.... Look, anyone who'd interpret this "illiterate" to mean functional illiteracy probably ought not to be editing this encyclopedia. There is literature and there is Literature, literacy in the literal sense and Literacy in the E. D. Hirsch sense. Mine is the latter, the classic, liberal arts sense, what you'd learn in freshman World Lit 101. I'll tell ya another shocker: because Jackie Kennedy was born on 7-28 (in 1929), JFK was 8-28 (he "saw" [that's equal to 100 or C] his wife every day). So Burj Khalifa really makes JFK the spouse of Goethe and a kind of "home" for people everywhere. Think about it: how many people do you know who combine the wealth, humor, good looks, and charm of JFK? Perhaps that explanation resonates more closely with you people. But it only works because JFK's emotional life resembled Goethe's 150 years previously--not vice versa.Richard Barnett "Dick" Bloom 16:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I just have to say that some of the above comments rank as among the silliest I have ever seen in my years on wikipedia. To proclaim there is a deliberate link between the height of the tower and Goethe, sans attribution, is an interesting speculation, but it is merely that: speculation. But to call some "illiterate" because they dismiss the link is... well, bizarre. And extremely silly. And potentially finding "several thousand professors of literature" who agree simply means there are several thousand equally silly people out there. Canada Jack (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Canada Jack: What did you get on your SATs? Mine were in the mid-1400's when 1600 was perfect. (I was half deaf at the time, too, and would score 1600 today.) The reason you're saying these comments are "silly" is because SILICON is the 14th element of the Periodic Table and you, "Canada Dry Jack", have been programmed to be "clear"--that is, clueless--clear in your belief that the world is MAGICAL rather than understandable as college knowledge is understandable and teachable. The world, my friend, is not magical; it has been choreographed, the way a ballet is, by numbers, just as your response was conditioned by my prose above and the number 14. The 14th letter? N. No, Canada Jack, the world is not magical (M). KNOW! I'm trying to educate the world. Know!! Richard Barnett "Dick" Bloom 20:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbbloom (talk • contribs)

I'm Canadian, Mr. Clueless. We don't have SATs (the "Canada" in "Canada Jack" was your "clue"). Seems someone needs to be re-educated, and it ain't me. But, just for the record, I've met plenty of people who would no doubt score higher than you on those SATs. Some of them manage to communicate a coherent version of reality, and do stuff like run news shows or write and win literary awards here in Canada. Others, of equal intelligence, communicate a version of reality whose coherence is limited to no one but their creator. They work in places like Canada Post or seek change from my pocket. Alas, I fear, you fall into that latter category.

So, here's some free pocket-change advice in terms of "silly": Your non-sequitors linking the word "silly" to an element on the period table and then to a number serve not to impress others with your unique intellectual approach, rather they confirm to these others my basic charge of "silly," your impressive SAT scores notwithstanding. And I doubt that producing the dozen university degrees you might have earned will fail to change that conclusion. So, if you want to "educate" the world, you've a) chosen the wrong forum and b) chosen, probably inadvertently, to expose more silliness than truth, however one sees "truth." Just saying. Canada Jack (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Now this is getting out of hand, the discussion is obviously starting to result in personal attacks. I've begun a discussion at the WikiProject to gather opinions from others (although frankly four against one should be enough). May I also point out that we have a person from the UK, the US, Canada and Australia who believe the connection is silly. --timsdad ^(talk) 02:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And New Zealand+Malaysia to that list. Personally I don't see the need for any discussion. No source, no mention in the article, no matter whether it makes me illiterate (although it means I did at least read and understand the relevant wikipedia policies). In fact it occured to me far more likely they liked the 8x8 because of the symbolism of the number 8 with luck in East Asian cultures, particularly the Chinese. It doesn't really explain why they choose 828, but I guess they couldn't quite manage 888 and it's better then 848. And guess what? After searching I at least have a reference even if it isn't a great one [2]. Perhaps a better reference could be found but the information we have so far clearly doesn't support the random speculation of a wikipedian (which never belongs in articles anyway)... Nil Einne (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, at least for now. Richard Barnett "Dick" Bloom 12:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbbloom (talk • contribs)

The year A.D. 828 actually does have some resonnance with many Muslims, in particular Shi'ah Muslims. That was the year the 10th Shi'ah Iman was born, Ali al-Hadi. While this may seem an arcane and trivial connection, recent incidents at the shrine where the Iman's remains rest proved to have serious reprecussions. The shrine is considered one of the holiest for Shi'ahs, it also holds the remains of the 11th Iman, al-Hadi's son. When it, the Al-Askari Mosque in Samarra, Iraq, was destroyed by Sunnis in Feb 2006 and July 2007, civil war very nearly broke out in Iraq. Indeed, it is not a stretch to say that if Americans leave Iraq and it subsequently descends into civil war, the destruction of that Mosque will have been a major rallying cry for Shi'ahs. (It has since been rebuilt, but bitterness lingers.)

However, I seriously doubt there is any connection at all, as the Burj has been named for Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who is a Sunni. It strains credulity that a Sunni would explicitly link that number - 828 - to a revered Shi-ah Iman, especially given the events at the Al-Askari Mosque in recent years. Canada Jack (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Except... wouldn't it be a different calendar that Muslims would be following? Why care that he was born in 828 in the western calendar? --Golbez (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Floor area

How about this having 334,000 sqare meter while Taipei 101 and Sears Tower have over 400,000 or close to it. How about a list of largest buildings cause from day 1 I noticed how wimpy this was compared to the square sears tower, twin towers, and the Taipei 101, which I am pretty sure has the most floor area and internal volume. Volume! there's the one! Because floor area is unfair becase of different floor heights; occupyable voulme should be a standard measurment. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The worlds largest building will probably be short and fat, it'll probably be the Pentagon or a shopping centre :). Eraserhead1 (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, and LOL the list already exists, too. But even among skyscrapers it is not nearly the biggest, Taipei 101 is the largest skyscraper. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See List of largest buildings in the world. From that list, The Venetian Macao probably qualifies as a skyscraper, though you could argue that the 40-storey tower is just part of the larger resort. Astronaut (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

According to this Australian source: "Burj Khalifa has a total built-up area of 530,000 square metres, including 170,000 square metres of residential space and more than 28,000 square metres of prime office space, Emaar said." Is 'built-up area' different to floor area? --timsdad ^(talk) 01:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Change in name, part two

The Wall Street Journal article states that the tower's new name is (will be?) Burj Khalifa Bin Zayed. Shouldn't this be the new name of this article, with a redirect from Burj Khalifa? Steamroller Assault (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This might turn out to be another Sears Tower -> Willis Tower controversy. In my opinion, we should wait until the name is confirmed before we change it. It's also possible that the name is changed, but the name Burj Khalifa is still used more commonly (in news articles, etc.) and it would make more sense to leave the article named as it currently is. We want to avoid having to go around to every article linking to this one changing the name again, to find that it wasn't necessary. --timsdad ^(talk) 00:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Elaborating on the "Height > Current records > Highest outdoor observation deck" line

• Highest outdoor observation deck in the world: 442 m (1,450 ft) (Burj Dubai Height, Facts & Figures) (previously Taipei 101 – 391.8 m (1,285 ft)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niaxilin (talk • contribs) 01:18, 5 January 2010

That height figure does not appear in the cited reference. Josh Parris 01:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Sorry about that. My first attempt to edit a Wikipedia article. The cite SHOULD be (Burj Dubai Facts And Figures). I'm finding it hard to checking citing links using the "preview" function. Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niaxilin (talk • contribs) 01:48, 5 January 2010

What you did above is the correct way to cite a reference in an article, however when discussing them we link to them like so: [http://www.burjofdubai.com/burj-dubai-facts-and-figures/ this source]

That's just an example. --timsdad ^(talk) 01:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That particular source's reliability is debatable... We've discussed it in the past and decided that we cannot be sure where they get their information from. It is likely that it's outdated anyway - they still have an "estimated height" listed of 818 m. --timsdad ^(talk) 02:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I had already done it when you posted this. However, upon closer inspection it seems you are right; I had assumed it was an official site and would be accurate, but apparently its accuracy is debatable. My mistake. Intelligentsium 02:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure a reliable source of the height of the observation deck will turn up soon with every news website around the world churning up stories on the opening./ --timsdad ^(talk) 02:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense! Thanks for the schooling on linking and fact-checking :) Niaxilin (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Floor plans mechanical?

What does mechanical use means in the floor plans section? For example 160–206 floors are for mechanical use. What does this mean? --Defender of torch (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Air conditioning, fire control, electrical distribution, lift motors and control, etc.202.124.75.85 (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It says penis at the top...

Someone who is registered, change it please!

Well, it did, briefly...20 minutes ago. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Broadcast Capability

Does anybody know what type of broadcasting can be achieved at that altitude/electromagnetism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.98.110 (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking. Could you please elaborate? Chelos (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism?

CNN interviews Jim Krane, author of "City of Gold: Dubai and the Dream of Capitalism":

"Dubai doesn't really need to have to build tall asides from prestige purposes," Jim Krane, author of "City of Gold: Dubai and the Dream of Capitalism" told CNN in a recent interview.

"If you look at it, it's a really bad idea. It uses as much electricity as an entire city. And every time the toilet is flushed they've got to pump water half a mile into the sky," he said.

The telescopic shape also presents problems of a more practical nature Krane says.

"The upper 30 or 40 floors are so tiny that they're useless, so they can't use them for anything else apart from storage. They've built a small, not so useful storage warehouse half a mile in the sky," he said.

Perhaps a section on practicality is in order?--Louiedog (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Since the Burj is (presently) unique in its scale, its practicality issues are unique as well. Do it. Occam's Shaver (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Worker injuries and deaths

Under the "Labor Controversy" heading, it reads "...hazardous conditions that resulted in a high number of deaths and injuries on site." I haven't had any success sourcing numbers (which probably shouldn't surprise me, given the contractors' deliberate obfuscation). Has anyone seen actual figures that we can add to that section?Occam's Shaver (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I did read a report about "another" worker dying on-site, but it was a while ago. I doubt that worker deaths are something the developers want to go into in great detail. However, it does seem to be something the building's critics might find out. Maybe Jim Krane (mentioned in the comment directly above) will use it as another way to deride this achivenment. Astronaut (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with Mountains

On reflection, I agree that the section heading is not particularly good and I invite a better section heading. However the skylines of Cape Town, Rio de Janerio and Hong Kong are among the classic city "trade marks" (along with the Statue of Liberty, the Eiffel Tower, the Golden Gate, the Sydney Opera House etc). I have tried to show the height of the Burj by imagaining that it was transferred to those cities (which already have a skyline composed of skyscrapers with a mountain as a backdrop). I believe this to be a good comparison. The references that I used are those in the corresponding Wikipedia articles, so I believe the section to be properly referenced. Martinvl (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think we need to compare its height with every urban landmark. We do it with the items it surpassed, but that's all. Though it is amusing to picture the Burj towering over the Sugarloaf, it's really too trivial, IMO, to point out. You end up only pointing those out and conveniently omitting others, it's not remotely objective. --Golbez (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I also feel a comparison with mountains is just a bit too trivial. Especially as some of the comparisons included differed from the height of Burj Khalifa by hundreds of metres. Comparisons with other buildings and structures are relevant because they were constructed by humans. --timsdad ^(talk) 00:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This sentence doesn't make sence and why is the section there in the first place?

A number of cities that have prominent skylines but dwarfed by a mountain that is synomymous with that city.

Comparison with mountains... what the Hell is that? Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Similarly, please note that the first paragraph of the main section in the article has a misspelling: "...which allowed achieving such a height economically feasable." The word should be spelled feasible. And I agree that the sentence pointed out by Daniel should be removed. 71.207.17.44 (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for pointing that out :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that I haven't removed the sentence pointed out by Daniel. Feel free to restore the edit protected. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Desired photos

The article has a great photo gallery from the construction phase of the building. Now that the building is complete, it would be great to have a photo gallery of the completed building. Some suggestions for breathtaking photos include:

• The building at night
• The building in front of a sunrise and/or a sunset
• Views from inside the building looking North, South, East, and West (I believe that looking east one should be able to see Iran across the Persian Gulf).
• Add you own ....

Happy photography !!! (note, this is a re-post of hidden text I placed in the article. see this diff). However whatever (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Another idea:

• On a day that there are low clouds, it would be a great photo-op to take a picture of the building partially obscured by the clouds (in other words, the building would appear taller than the clouds).

However whatever (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• All images on [[3]] are licensed as GFDL you can copy any over to commons and use them here... Check File:Burj_Dubai_20081019.jpg to see how the licensing is done.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

New Full video of the Opening Ceremony was published at

i just finished watching the full party of the opening ceremony of Burj Khalifa [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adihamo (talk • contribs) 07:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

More specifically, the movie is here. However, it was already removed. However whatever (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why the F do I have to take these stupid quizzes or give them my e-mail address? To "make sure I'm human" Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Highest mosque?!

The assertion that the tower contains the world's highest mosque is widely reported, but is patently not true - to pick the first example that comes to mind, Kabul is 1,800 m above sea level and has a few mosques, I believe. The highest mosque above ground level it may be, but the press releases seem to have missed out that important qualification. --Blisco (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The same must go for most if not all the other "higher"s: I'm pretty sure there are higher observation decks, swimming pools and aluminium/glass facades. Given that "world's highest" generally implies above sea level, the statements are misleading even if readers assume that ground level is what is meant. --Blisco (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

When talking about buildings, any height is a height above the ground and not sea level. That is a long standing convention the is so well established to be obvious without further qualification. Without it, various mountaineer's tents would become the tallest structures in the world and would make a mockery of many architectural achievements throughout history. Obviously, one could find a mosque up a mountain with a justifiable claim to be "the highest mosque above sea level". Astronaut (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I was very frustrated to hear many news reports of the opening of Burj Khalifa claiming it was the "highest building in the world" when this obviously doesn't make sense if given some thought. After editing Wikipedia on the topic for a reasonably long time now, it seems instantly ridiculous to me that people could make such a mistake, but maybe it's not so obvious to most people. Surely there can't be any confusion about the "tallest building in the world" as this obviously means from its base to its tip (disregarding the different categories of height measurement of skyscrapers). It does make perfect sense to me, however, that a mountaineer's tent six kilometres up a slope of Mount Everest could, for a short time, be the highest structure in the world. --timsdad ^(talk) 14:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

New photos of Burj Khilafa required.

As we know Burj khilafa is now complete and opened, majority of the images in this article, are of partially completed burj khilafa,(except infobox image) so can we have new pics of current status !!! we can divide the construction gallery into two parts, as:

• Burj khilafa during construction ohase and,
• Burj khilafa after completion

wht say ???

we also need the image of closeup of burj Khilafa's spire,so that we will put in the construction section.and a image showing three-lobbed structure of burj khilafa,to be put in Architecture and design section.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• • All images on [[5]] are licensed as GFDL you can copy any over to commons and use them here... Check File:Burj_Dubai_20081019.jpg to see how the licensing is done.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll see that the same thing was discussed a few sections above. The gallery has already been split by the editor who brought it up.

May I also point out, as much as I dislike pointing out the mistakes of others to them, that the correct spelling is Burj Khalifa not Khilafa. I'm only telling you because you have edited in many places, changing the name. --timsdad ^(talk) 14:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, i really mingled the both words !

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent monetary units

This article begins reporting monetary amounts in US dollars before switching to pounds. The norm as stated at MOS:CONVERSIONS is:

Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided...

Any volunteers to do the work? Supertouch (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa Renaming

I believe it is possible that the tower was renamed because Khalifa of Abu Dhabi bought it in the recent bailout, along with much of the rest of the city. Has anyone seen anything on the web that would suggest it? --PlatoCantRepent (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Aren't all the news reports saying that it's just named in honour of Khalifa? --timsdad ^(talk) 04:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what they're saying, but if this is 'honour', then I'd rather be bankrupt.--PlatoCantRepent (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sea level

Isn't it right next to the Sea which is equal to ocean level? How did they make the pilings into the bedrock; they most go a ways below sea level; isn't the base pretty much at sea level? Fancy this; could it really be 818 meters; and 828 is the height above sea level....... Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"The outdoor observation deck, opened on 5 January 2010, is the highest in the world, at (about 440 m (1,440 ft))."

That's wrong : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation_deck

Burj Khalifa has the highest outdoor observation deck. I will make this more clear in the article; I understand how it can easily be misinterpreted. --timsdad ^(talk) 11:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude, elevation

You skipped my question; isn't it just over sea level at the base, the Persian Gulf has a tide doesn't it? That must affect the Palm Island thing, too. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Do I have to answer all of your questions now, do I? I didn't really understand it nor know the answer, if there was one, so I ignored it. It's not right next to the sea like many of the other buildings on the main strip, it's located about 2.5 km (1.6 mi) from the beach. --timsdad ^(talk) 02:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Mistake

"Burj Khalifa has been the world's tallest building since 2010." Can someone please change this to "2008"? I can't find the quote when I go to "edit this page". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.46.223 (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Officially it doesn't count as a "building" until it is open and fully habitable. Before then it was only a "structure". So 2010 is the right date to use. –Megaboz (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Floor count

Is it 160, or 206, or something else?

Under current records it's "Building with most floors: 160"

In the infobox it's "Floor count 206 floors"

78.105.243.21 (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There are 160 habitable floors, the rest are presumed to be mechanical as they become so small the further they progress up the building to the spire. I've attempted to change the infobox to read 160 habitable floors twice now but I continue to get reverted by an anonymous editor. --timsdad ^(talk) 14:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually 160 are the total number of habitable floors, while remaining 46 floors are for mechanical purposes, and 2 basement floors making a total 208 floors,therefore the 46 floors are not considered as habotable.But few sources still say 162, OR 160, there is a little confusion in this matter.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to come up with a compromise. It does seem ridiculous to me to count the maintenance landings in the spire as floors. Interestingly, searching for 206 floors gives just 13 Ghits, but searching for 160 floors gives 2400 Ghits (162 floors gives just 38 Ghits). If Google hits was a reliable measure, it would be a resounding win for 160. Astronaut (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Here i want to make it clear that spire itself doesnt contain inside it any mechanical or maintanance floor,because the floors completes (206) beneath the spire, if we consider 160 the actual floors, but the confucion atill presists, we shall have to wait until some reliable source explains all these matters full of confusion, we also needs the statistics regarding the height to top floor, and the height to roof, and an exact height of an indoor and outdoor observation deck.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the 156th floor is at the very top of the concrete structure, at just over 600 m. Above that, there is the steel structure consisting of 4 more floors and approx 200 m of tapering spire. The inside of the spire has ladders and small landings to enable the maintenance crews to change the bulb in the aircraft beacon. There is just not the space to fit 50 floors inside the steel structure. Astronaut (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the major UK newspapers had an article which stated that the top habitable floor was only 8 meters wide. The Jedi Council Room might even be slightly larger. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Highest floor

How high does a building have to be for its height to be so high that if you're standing inside the highest available floor and look out the window, it'll be dark regardless of the time of day?? I think about twice as high as Burj Khalifa; am I right?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No. No where near. Consider this, the top of Burj Khalifa is no more than 850 m above sea level (the surrounding land is certainly less than 20 m above sea level), and yet it is often bright daylight at the top of Mount Everest some 10 times higher above sea level. The sky only starts to appear dark at tens of thousands of metres above sea level; passengers in Concorde, fighter pilots, astronauts, etc. notice that effect. Astronaut (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody know a name for that effect? And that partially answers my question of the elevation of the land around the Burj Dubai. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I found the height of the surrounding land by hovering my mouse over the area in Google Earth. Not very accurate, but good enough to answer this question. While I try to find out if there is a name for the darkening of the sky at high altitudes, you might find some insight in Rayleigh scattering and Diffuse sky radiation. Astronaut (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

About 5 metres then? --timsdad ^(talk) 04:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No roof height?

All I see is the antenna/spire height; no roof height... Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't have a figure for that info yet. I'm sure it will eventually become known in a reliable source. Astronaut (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Shanghai World Financial Center still claims highest roof record

Look at the records section at the bottom of the article; the succeeding box still says "Incumbent".

The Burj Dubai article lists no roof height yet. Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

see my answer just above. Astronaut (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there an "unreliable source" that tells the roof height; you specified that there is no reliable roof height figure; is there at least an educated guestimate of what it is or what it will be? Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well in the height to roof section of the list of tallest buildings in the world, Burj Khalifa is listed as having a roof height of 636 metres. I don't know where that came from, though. --timsdad ^(talk) 02:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Burj Dubai cover up

Hmm, the original youtube video posted of the jumpers footage has been removed and there are no new results anymore; it seems that people want to deny that ever happened. And the crap news video of it purports the story in the description to make it sound like they were caught the first time and that only one guy jumped. BS Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please fix this

In the section of 'Architecture and design' it says the temperature at the top is 6 C (11 F). But the thing is 6 degree Celsius is never equel to 11 degree Ferenhight. So please somebody fix this with the correct Information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.104.30 (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've changed it to 48 degrees Fahrenheit. And please note that it says it's 6 degrees Celsius cooler at the top than at the base. --timsdad ^(talk) 08:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa cost !

It says that it cost 1.5 Billion dollor, but if we see the cost of Taipei 101, it cost 1.7 billion dollors, rather it will cost more if we adjust currency to current year, it will be approx 3 billion.so is this not suspecious that the building which is very much tall and only cost 1.5 billion dollars, which is very much cheap.before its completion it says that burj khalifa will cost 4 billion dollors. The whole downtown burj khalifa cost 20 billion dollors, where as Dubai fountain cost 350 million dollors, and dubai mall cost some where 2-3 billion, and burj khalifa(lets say 1.5 billion) this makes up a sum total of approx 5 billion dollars, wht about the remaining 15 billion dollors ??? while the remaining old town residences and residential towers, roads and infrastructure shouldnt be cost as much as 15 billions !!! so we have to check the cost of burj khalifa instead.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There are several very reliable sources which confirm the $1.5 billion dollar cost, such as this USA Today article and this Boston Herald article. --timsdad ^(talk) 11:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wording of the BASE jumping section

It is my opinion that the wording of this section is quite poor. It currently says: "With permission of the authorities, the two men descended a vertical drop of 828 m (2,717 ft), with enough time to open a parachute 10 seconds into the 90 second jump. They reached speeds of up to 220 km/h (140 mph) before deploying the parachute prior to safely landing on the ground." I think it is unnecessary to say they opened parachutes and then say in the very next sentance that they deployed their parachutes. We are talking about a parachute jump here, and it is pretty obvious the parachutes were deployed before they hit the ground, so it is certainly unnecessary to reconfirm it in the next sentence. Also the wording "...speeds of up to 220 km/h (140 mph) before deploying the parachute prior to safely landing on the ground" is difficult to read easily. I can't be the only one who had to scan past it twice. It seems to have one too many before/prior words.

Yet, when I changed it back to the previous wording of; "With permission of the authorities, the two men descended a vertical drop of 828 m (2,717 ft), with enough time to open a parachute 10 seconds into the 90 second jump. They reached speeds of up to 220 km/h (140 mph) before reaching the ground safely." I was accused of making an unhelpful edit.

So, is the current wording better? Is the pervious wording better? Or would a different wording work better and still not give the impression the BASE jumpers crashed into the ground at 220 km/hr? Astronaut (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Previous wording is better (yours one),as it explains briefly.And it is unneccessary to use the word parachute again in the next sentance,and also it makes difficult for the reader to understand.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no need for both the words "before" and "prior" to appear in the same sentence. I have made the fix. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. However whatever (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Floor 124 height

We don't know the height of the observation deck yet? Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12