Jump to content

Talk:Burj Khalifa

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.246.235.134 (talk) at 02:08, 7 January 2010 (→‎Inconsistent monetary units). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article uses British English dialect and spelling.
According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

According to [1], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Hey it opens tomorrow!

How about that? 74.44.130.237 (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OH yay!!! now it open today


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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Burj Kalifa comparison is missing Willis Tower (Sears Tower)

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The International Commerce Centre has 118 floors, but it's not quite finished yet. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article might help. The International Commerce Centre has been topped out. --timsdad (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


{{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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh, i really mingled the both words !


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

Name of Address downtown burj dubai ???

Is the name of address downtown burj dubai also been changed ??? is there any reliable source ?? and that of Dubai Mall, Downtown burj dubai ???

i dont think so, because if these all names have been changed so that the follwoing names would also have been changed:

  • Khilafa founain.
  • Khilafa international airport
  • Dubai name changed to "KHILAFA"
  • Khilafaland
  • Khilafa Zoo

yet all the words carrying "Dubai" with them awould have been changed.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. The only things that we can assume that will be renamed contain the name of the building, of which the name has been changed. This includes only:
  • Burj Khilafa
  • Downtown Burj Khilafa; hence...
  • The Address Downtown Burj Khilafa...
...and any other place named after the building itself. --timsdad (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I foresee an ominous future for this piece of s&%t.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burj_Khalifa&oldid=336321704"