# Talk:Taipei 101

June 15, 2008 - Taipei 101 Run Up, won by German athlete Thomas Dold, 23, in 10 minutes, 53 seconds with 200,000 Taiwan dollars (6,600 US) prize  - defeating last year's champion Italian Marco De Gasperi, second and Taiwan's Chen Fu-tsai, third (of 2,500 participants). Dold also won the 2008 New York Empire State Building run-up. In the women's event, Taiwanese Lee Hsiao-yu of Taiwan, won in 14 minutes and 53 seconds.afp.google.com, German wins race up world's tallest skyscrapernewsinfo.inquirer.net, German wins race up world's tallest skyscraper--Florentino floro (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Should it be included in the article of the actual name of the damper? I was able to go to Taipei 101 in 2006 or 2007, and it has a clearly stated name of Damper Baby, along with height, weight, likes and the such. Apparently, we view it as a personification. Should this be added?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.228.24.66 (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 

Taipei 101 was mentioned in the fifth Artemis Fowl book. Should we mention this? --Buritanii (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Tai-pak yat-leng-yat is Cantonese, not POJ. Someone should correct this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.14.195 (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC) 

No mention of the 5 civilian deaths caused by cranes falling off during construction?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.168.132 (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC) 

Hello there: the same way the ROC article has a country infobox showing the name in english, then, its local name in the appliable script (traditional), or the Red cross of the ROC article, in its NGO infobox, I have added it, for what it seems like the policy of the site...
I DO NOT SUPPORT ADDING 台北101 TO THE SKYCRAPPER INFOBOX, BECAUSE THE CITY OF TAIBEI, LIKE THE CITY OF TAIZHONG, BOTH USE THE FORM 臺, NOT 台.
linguistics include both variants (thats y its a linguistics box)Gumuhua (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

臺 and 台 are both acceptable and are both used in the city names. Personally, I think if there's one character that should be purged from the Chinese language, it is 臺. It's utterly useless, as 台 is already both a traditional and a simplified character. 61.224.44.12 (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the following statement, and think it would be worth mentioning a reputable source for this definition in the article:

"international architectural standards define a "building" as a structure capable of being fully occupied."

If this were truly the qualification for a "Building" then that would suggest that an office tower that is fire damaged on one floor or an apartment complex that is flooded in the basement or a house that has had its water shut-off ceases to be a building because they cannot safely and legally sustain full occupancy in accordance with city building codes (at least in the United States). Obviously, that is completely counter-intuitive.
For sake of example, when the Empire State Building was hit by a B-52 bomber in 1945, was it temporarily not a building while ongoing repairs were being conducted to the upper floors? --RKrause (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should review the citations in this article to make it more credible.
It's dangerous and unacceptable to cite another wiki without going directly to the sources of information.
This is pretty much how rumors got started.  And rumor is not what wikipedia is about.
Please help clean up this article and improve its quality and credibility.
Skyline68 (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


### Suggest Removal
#### Richie Wiki
This article here claims that Taipei 101 was "constructed by Samsung Engineering and Construction and KTRT Joint Venture."  But it failed to offer source of reference.  In the article's reference section, none of the cited reference mentioned Samsung.  In fact, the video "Discovery Channel, Man Made Marvels: Taipei 101", which majority of the article is based, mentioned neither Samsung nor KTRT JV.  This only proves that this RitchieWikie article doesn't qualify as reliable source of reference.

Hey, does anyone have a source for this:
"2009-2010: There will no longer be fireworks this year due to the rejection of foreign company sponsors such as Sony."
I'm just a bit curious about why there aren't going to be fireworks this year.
128.255.150.46 (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, there WAS fireworks for 2010, together with the slogan "Taiwan UP". So wherever this came from, it wasn't correct in the end.Grottenolm42 (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a reference to the CN tower somewhere on the page, and how much taller this tower is than that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.21.205 (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC) 

The following claim is incorrect, despite the reference: "Taipei 101 was the first building in the world to break the half-kilometer mark in height[4]."  In the CN Tower article there is a contradiction: "Standing 553.3 metres (1,815 ft) tall,[2] it was completed in 1976."  I am much more certain about the validity of the latter claim. --Silentrebel (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the difference here is between "tower" and "building". There are plenty of towers that were taller than Taipei 101 (see List of tallest structures in the world). But yes, the CN Tower was the tallest "freestanding structure" for quite some time. :) Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... Very good point.  In such a case, the claim in the text is not wrong, but could be misleading.  It seems to me that not everyone would clearly see the difference between and building and a tower.  Perhaps this distinction should be clearly made. --Silentrebel (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I would not think it would be necessary, but perhaps a wikilink for "building" that links to the list of tallest buildings, which in turn has links to the lists of structures, towers, etc.? Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This article refers solely to this building's emporis page for its height (509.2 m). But numerous other webpages refer to it as being 508 meters tall (bbc article, (in French) lemoniteur.fr article ...). I don't think emporis height should be the only one to be used in the article. Freewol (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is somewhat explained in Talk:Taipei 101/Archive 1#GA Review and Talk:Taipei 101/Archive 1#Exact height of Taipei 101.  Both explain that the building is constructed on a 1.2 m high concrete platform.  The builders didn't include the platform in their height so 508 m got propagated to a lot of places.  It seems the CTBUH, who officially decide such things for the purpose of declaring records, originally included the platform and got 509.2 m.  However, they have now changed it to 508 m (see here).  Who is right, I'm not sure; I have a feeling we should include the platform because it projects above the ground and was built so that the skyscraper could be built on top of it, but the CTBUH has a good record when it comes to such things and Wikipedia often uses their figures as a reliable source.  The prior consensus may have been based on the CTBUH's earlier inclusion of the platform, but that may change now.   Astronaut (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

floors higher than 92 aren't accessible at all. let alone wheelchair / handicap accessible!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.127.243 (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC) 

That'll be bacause those floors house communications equipment and are therefore not open to the public.  Astronaut (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

When I visited the building last week, it seemed that many of the floors were empty. I also heard commentary that the rent was exorbitant. Does someone know the occupancy rate? --Alvestrand (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

‘台北101’ is the only trademark and official name in Chinese, and ‘臺北101’ is never used. The Chinese name of MRT Taipei 101/World Trade Center Station was also changed from 臺北101/世貿站 to 台北101/世貿站 for following the official Chinese name of Taipei 101. Please do not follow some IP accounts’ false information. 🐱💬 18:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Do we really need to be discussing the tuned mass damper a second time? It's well covered in the section on structural design, but is discussed again in the section on the interior. Uaiazr Jxhiosh (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Uaiazr Jxhiosh: Ah, it was a good idea to check the talk page.  I saw a few other duplicates and was tagging them, but I missed this duplicate.  Thank you for noticing this and mentioning it.  --Super Goku V (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)