"
 Completion date 

Once again, someone has changed the completion date to 30 June '09, though this time they have modified the reference so it no longer shows the photo with the billboard saying 30 Dec '08.  The new reference is now to the main page at http://burjdubaiskyscraper.com which does indeed say 30 June '09.  My question is: can burjdubaiskyscraper.com be considered a reliable source?

I think we should change the completion to 2009, but not include an exact date.  Since burjdubaiskyscraper.com is just a third-party site, I do not think they can be trusted with knowing the official information.  But, Emporis.com does have a completion date of 2009; they can be trusted.  Also, I do not know how anyone can know the exact date of the completion of a building.  It would be best to just stick to the year.   (talk | contributions) 

    

 Height in early March 2008 

Several editors have changed the height of the Burj Dubai from 604.9 m to 611.3 m.  I have changed it back to 604.9 metres as no official statment has yet been made by Emaar.  I propose that the height not be changed unless Emaar makes an official statement or there is a change of the height on the Burj Dubai's official site: www.burjdubai.com.  Since only the developer knows the exact height, we should not use any updates or information from other sources.  Once the height on the official website is updated should we change the height here on Wikipedia.   (talk | contributions) 
I agree.  One official source is better than many conflicting unofficial sources.    

 Remaining milestones 
I have my doubts whether the Petronius oil platform qualifies as a ""world's tallest freestanding structure"" and as a milestone for Burj Dubai to pass.  Most of it's structure is below water and therefore doesn't qualify under CTBUH rules.    
I do not have an opinion on the issue, just a few comments.  Consensus is that it is not considered the tallest; and therefore may not warrant being included as a milestone.  But, despite that, it does stand taller than the CN Tower, even if it is in water.  It will not hurt if we keep it, and will not be a major deal if we take it away.  Let us see if anyone else has an opinion.   (talk | contributions) 

 At this rate, we gotta keep all those deep level mines too since they are much 'taller' than any tower or oil platform ever built.
  

Actually, many argue that the Petronius is the ""tallest free-standing structure"", hence the usual addition of ""on land"" to the Burj Dubai's title (for now), and previously to the CN Tower's title. So I don't agree that consensus agrees to the contrary; consensus agrees that it is not on land, but there is much support of it being a free-standing structure in general. CTBUH has never released any information about the world's tallest structures; it only measures the height of the tallest buildings, so by its rules the CN Tower also would not count. It is therefore not very relevant in this situation. Anyway, I believe that the Petronius should be kept as a milestone. Cheers, -me 

Would Petronius stand on it's own without buoyancy?   
 Even if it can, a lot of the difficulty of a tall structure is in the construction process.  Oil rigs have a serious advantage there because they don't need tall cranes, because you can access the top with boats.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.142   

 Bill Baker 
Some mention should be made of Bill Baker the head structural engineer at Skidmore