Talk:Taipei 101/Archive 1

message: Hello, I am the GA reviewer of this article. If you have any questions please post them here or on my talkpage. Regards, Daimanta 07:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may consider putting it on hold for about a week first. I'm looking for sources.--Jerry 00:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't really think it has to be that sourced, you only need a citation for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements" (See WP:GA?) I will remove the Wiki sources. If there aren't other reasons, then I don't think this article should be failed that soon.--Jerry 00:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A good article should have the quality that in every alinea there is at least one credible source. The area that you need citations for can be interpreted to be a small one or a big one. Also, the reliability of sources can be a matter to interpretation. That's why a GA review is never a cut and dry case. It allows the reviewer some leeway and different GA reviews may come out differently. The lack of response or progress ticked me off, since I saw no attempts to improve this article. And the way I see it, is that the article is not yet ready for GA-status. But if people work on it, it will pass GA-criteria. I am willing to wait and discuss the quality of this article untill it becomes GA. Of I find other people who think the same, I am sure this article will become GA. Regards, Daimanta 12:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, it's actually kind of hard to find the statements you are talking about. Can you please just add  to the end of the statements?--Jerry 19:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done, but that won't solve the problem. If people don't source articles, they are all too often easily disputed. Regards, Daimanta 20:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I reviewed the rest of the article and if the sources are found, the article will be passed. Regards, Daimanta 11:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The things we do for the better of human knowledge ;) ,Daimanta 01:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: I would like to give some advice. There are many unsourced bits and pieces. A GA reviewer might see this as not properly sourced and will fail this. Regards, Daimanta 14:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where?--Jerry 18:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice 

message: Shouldn't we call it TAIPEI 101 instead of Taipei 101 because TAIPEI is mnemonic for Technology, Art, Innovation, People, Environment, and Identity.awesomisticisms 06:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Names

message: adding the fact that Taipei 101 has the fastest elevators in the world - Sasquatch 04:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  fastest elavators in the world 

message: Taipei city belongs to China, It is not a individual nation. and the place mark in windwind is wrong, the right place is in Latitude 25.03480, Longtitude 121.56487. I live nearby the 101 building.
I'd like to chime in here on the subject, is it appropriate to list Taipei 101 under Category:Buildings of China? China seems to imply the People's Republic of China which has no jurisdiction here. Most of the buildings listed under the category are on Mainland China.
--Loren 22:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe most people would say that Taiwan is a country. The UN can be biased still even if it's a really big organization. Wikipedia should be about facts and not about UN's considerations. This article is not a political article, and therefore should not be part of WPCHINA I think.--Jerry 23:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Buildings of China. 

message: In addition to being the world's tallest occupied building, this tower is also one of the deepest money pits in Taipei. Many floors are unoccupied, some floors are rented by the government as a form of subsidy. Yesterday, a high-end gym inside this building went bankrupt. What is the world's tallest profitable occupied building? -- Toytoy 06:17, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
:Good question --  I kinda wondered why Taipei is the only huge building in pictures.  To me this seemed strange because here in America, if demand is high enough for a skyscraper, you'll see several, like in NYC or Chicago.  However, this could just be due to american buildings being built by the private sector.  Anyway, to your question, I know the CN Tower, now owned by the government of Canada, brings in a lot of money for sight-seeing.  However, that's not a building.  Most privately built skyscrapers in the US are profitable, including the Empire State Building and the Sears Tower.  However, publicly built buildings in America, like the World Trade Center have had their share of problems too -- I know that the WTC was empty except government workers until the economy picked up in the 1980s. --Quasipalm 19:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was once told that the maximum height of buildings in Taipei was restricted back during the martial law days, dunno if it's true but that might explain why the construction of buildings taller then 20 stories didn't really start in Taiwan till the early 90's, though most of these were apartment high rises and condos. Another possible reason might soil stability concerns. I recall that there was a great deal of concern about the Taipei Basin sinking during the construction of the subway system, also in the early 90's. -Loren 21:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deepest money pit 

message: I added the contradict template.  There are two very different numbers that count floor area of T101.  One in the infobox (that I added) was from here: .  This site is generally good about not putting in false information and making sure things are sourced or calculated fairly.  I wonder where the area in the article is from?  It states: "Buildable area is 450,000 m² with: 214,000 m² of office space, 77,500 m² of retail space, 73,000 m² of parking space"  450,000 seems inflated to me -- that would make it more than the Sears Tower which is quite a bit "girthier"/thicker than T101.  Also, 214+77.5+73 only equals 364,000 m².  Where is the last 86,000?  Building services?  Also, I wonder if it's normal to count parking space in the floor-area figure?  --Quasipalm 17:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: does this have anything to do with the Taipei 101 Mall that occupies floors G-5 and is significantly wider than the tower? --Jiang 23:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, it might!  I wonder where there might be some documenation of this...  If I have time this weekend I'll google around for the numbers to figure out exactly what they mean. --Quasipalm 01:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: contradict template

message: Taipei Financial Center, Taipei Financial Building, 
臺北國際金融大樓, 臺北國際金融中心...etc.
All above are not it's official names, but original names.
Taipei 101 was official named "TAIPEI 101"(台北101) in July 2002, 
old names such as "Taipei Financial Center" are no longer used.
--cis(from:Taipei) 08:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Taipei Financial Center" 

message: Hi
May I have approved permission to add a new section "Design and Aesthetics" under article: Taipei 101? I have read numourous resources else where about its Feng Shui and design, and would like to make a contribution.
This new article will also explain more about the damper system, its earlier design plans, its philosophy, the "Ru-Yi" Symbols on every 8 segments, why the entire tower is bamboo green and Etc. I will add as much as I can. 
So before I add the article, I would like to send my this proposal and would like to know if it'll be approved by the higher authorties, or the administrators of the Taipei 101 article, before I can start. I will be keen and I will do my best to fine-tune this new article.
I hope you would accept my proposal.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
 
Thank you.
Stefan Tan
Age 17
Singapore
: Hello Stefan. Anyone can edit wikipedia. Be bold and add meaningful and useful content when ever and where ever you can. You do not need approval or permissions from any authority or administrator. Usually major articles are on a lot of people's watchlist so changes and updates are reviewed by fellow wikipedians. Go ahead, edit, and enjoy :) sikander 07:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a new Topic = Design and Aesthetics 

message: Please add images to the commons.  This article has too many photos.  Cacophony 19:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  images 

message: The official height if the Taipei 101 is 508m, not 509m, it says so on most websites. I have visited the Taipei 101 4 times, and the phamplets there says it is 508m. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) .
::That is incorrect and the building pamphlets are wrong. I have a copy of the blueprints. The reason it was originally listed as 508 meters is that it was measured from the top of the platform on which the entire block is built. It is just a short platform about a meter high, but it MUST count in the building's height according to the international standards for height measurement because it is entirely above sidewalk level. In other words, it is part of the man-made above-ground structure (not a hill or berm). The exact height is 509.2 meters (1670 feet and 7 inches), and this is recognized by the CTBUH and Emporis, the only organizations which present an international standard for building height measurement. In keeping with Wikipedia's Neutral point-of-view and No original research policies, it is important to use standard official sources for data. What the building owners say means nothing because they are applying a measurement process that is not used on other buildings: therefore the measurement is not comparable to that of other skyscrapers which are measured according to defined standards. See the Talk page of World's tallest structures for more details on the exact heights of Taipei 101 and the Sears Tower. Montalto 06:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact height of Taipei 101 

message: A different pronunciation is commonly used for the character "一" in Mainland China (also used in Taiwan, though rarely) when referring to a specific number such as a telephone number, "yāo". Is it possible that Taipei 101 is sometimes pronounced "Táiběi Yāolíngyāo" instead? Aran|heru|nar 12:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinyin 

message: What is the building's function? Njál 17:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Office, shopping centre. Many uses. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Function 

message: In the info box it states the building cost $1,600,000,000.
In the Construction section it states that: "the $1.7-billion building’s versatile needs"
Can someone reconcile this? ``ryanpm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.119.232.106 (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost of the building? 

message: I removed the bulk of the information in the observation decks section since it offered information on how to visit the Tower.  This information was unsourced, doubtless available elsewhere on the internet, and is not standard in other articles on buildings/tourist attractions (cf. Eiffel Tower). Nicolasdz 20:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Ticket Info

message: I reverted a rather confused and poorly formatted addition made from an anonymous IP today and apparently describing a proposed Cosmos Tower project in Istanbul, Turkey. The relevance to this article was not clear, and it was possibly vandalism or ill-judged content. If there is some relevance of that project to this article, please discuss it here to explain why. Mooncow 19:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Cosmos Tower

message: I believe that it would be incorrect to use Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. This term is not a political division, Taipei is not part of the Taiwan Province. And this isn't a political article anyways. It isn't a geographic description either.--Jerrypp772000 23:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The for the township articles we should include Guantian, Tainan County, Taiwan Province, the Republic of China. That would definitely be correct following the adminstrative division.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TingMing (talk • contribs) 01:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah but it should be made more clear. It should say something like: the official political division is... and there should be a (Taiwan) after the ROC.--Jerrypp772000 22:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And that is not called a "discussion" at all. That sounds rather like an forcible assertion for us to follow. Vic226 18:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan 

message: This constant edit warring is becoming disruptive. I'm protecting the page pending consensus. Involved parties are advised to discuss on the talk page. Expansion of this edit war onto other articles will be viewed as intentional disruption. -Loren 04:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: This building is still the tallest building in the world, at least for a few more weeks. Any article written should first state the reason for the article's existence/importance. Details and technicalities can be saved for further explication later in the article.Ryoung122 00:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Most Important Comes First

message: Technically, Taipei 101 was surpassed by the Burj Dubai in July 2007, but the Burj is not yet fully habitable. However, other buildings, such as the Sears Tower, took up the title as soon as they surpassed the previous building in height, not when they became fully occupied. So, should we put (|year_end= 2007) on the infobox, or leave as is? Raime 19:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer Tallest Building? 

message: I understand that this building is in a place that is administrated by the ROC, but Taiwan isn't geographically considered part of China by most people. This article should not be political.--Jerry 17:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That could depend on who's definition of what China is, however I agree that this article should not be political. nattang 19:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Taiwan is considered geographically part of China on Wikipedia, then wptaiwan would not exist. And since it exists, this article should not be part of wpchina.--Jerry 19:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not stating that it should, however there are ppl who have different definitions of what China is and what areas it includes. nattang 20:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: True. My point is that if they want this article, which has absolutely nothing to do with the government of ROC, to become part of the Chinese project, they'll have to come up with a good reason to get rid of the Taiwanese project first.--Jerry 20:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject China? 

message: Taipei 101 is not named due to its postal district because it's in the postal district 110 for Xinyi. There is no postal code 101. --the MOLIU gecko 05:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postal district? 

message: I've found this article on the GA nominations list. I can't reach a decision on whether to pass or fail the article, but I do have some comments that are hopefully useful.
*"making several appearances in various games, anime, novels, as well as other elements of popular culture." I don't think 'anime' is plural as it should be.
*Several units of measurement aren't wikified for the reader's convenience (especially in the infobox)
*The 'Chronology'-section should be near the top of the article near or combined with the 'Construction'-section. - Mgm|(talk) 11:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination comments