Talk:Burj Khalifa/Archive 2

message: I contacted the owner of BurjDubaiSkyscraper.com and asked him for permission to use the pictures from his website. He has granted permission (yaaaaay). This is what he had to say:
From:   Daniel Hoffmann
Sent:  Mon 4/24/2006 1:13 PM 
To:   Siddiqui, Jibran 
Subject:   Re: Permission to use pictures 
Hello Jibran Siddiqui,
Of course, feel free to use my pictures from burjdubaiskyscraper.com,
Wikipedia is a great site!
Daniel Hoffmann
> Hi. I was wondering if you can grant permission to use some of the Burj 
> Dubai pictures at BurjDubaiSkyscraper.com, at the article on Burj Dubai 
> at the non-commercial and free Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, at 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Dubai, after giving due credit to your 
> website and providing a link to it too.
> Thank you,
> Jibran Siddiqui.
--Jibran1 18:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your efforts but unfortunately I think you need to explain things better. We only allow images with a 'free' license on wikipedia and it's not clear the owner of the site has agreed to license any of his photos under a 'free' license Nil Einne 12:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Permission granted tro use pictures from BurjDubaiSkyscraper.com

message: While mentioning the heights of other towers in comparison, in the second or third paragraph, the Freedom Tower is listed as 1,776 feet, while all the others are listed in meters. Clearly, the person who wrote this article has been updated on the sensationalism of the Freedom Tower, and its symbolic height. Shouldn't someone list the Freedom Tower's height in meters also?
I think the Freedom Tower article should have its height told in both meters and feet. The 1,776 should be included for popularly accepted symbolism, and the meters for technical correctness and conformity to other Wikipedia articles. 
If possible, please sign your message next time! I like to refer to people by their sn's for respect. :)Thanks. 
Gunbolt 00:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you elaborate? --Golbez 23:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other building heights (NPOV) 

message: How many car bays at Burj Dubai? I am struggling to find out any information other than the car bays are going to be underground. Some reports point to the fact that there are only 2 underground floors considering the depth of the foundations this seems to small to accomdate all the inhabitants or is their a deliberate ploy to have limited parking in the development? Any information on this would be much appreciated.
---
According to [this] there will be 16,000 parking spaces, but not in the tower itself.
--76.11.13.218 04:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many car bays at Burj Dubai? 

message: This pages lists the topout at December 30 2008 and the opening February, 2009.  So, according to this, they are going to add all of the finishing to the building in 2 months.  This would be unheard of for a normal sized skyscraper...  how can this be? -Quasipalm 15:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening date

message: The current height is noted as "well over just shy of 190 meters."  Which is it, under or over 190m?
That is probably referring to it's current height during construction. As of mid October 2006, it is just over 200m. --KCMODevin 11:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Height

message: Their web address is wrong now : "No web site is configured at this address." --193.56.241.75 06:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DDIA 

message: There's a new image found recently that reveals a whole load of information about the steel structure. First of all, the height is confirmed at 808m and roof height at 643.3m. Also the height of the concrete core is 585.7m. There's a good bit of info on how it will be constructed as well in this image. I'll update the heights but won't upload the image to wikipedia since the height is still supposed to be confidential and someone may complain. The link to the image is here though: 
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/896/s2in3.jpg  
At the moment it's NOT the 2nd tallest in Dubai because the Rose Rotana Suites has reached its full height of 333m. As well, 90 floors seems a bit optimistic. Rahmalec 18.52, 1 December 2006
Actually, it is at 90 floors, confirmed by multiple ppl in Dubai, as well as the estimate that says 1 floor every 2-3 days. It's been about 6 days since it was around 88 floors. You can also tell it's at 90 floors from daily photos being taken. It also looks like it will pass 333m by the middle of next week. --KCMODevin 20:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New source for Height 

message: I am just wondering where the updates are coming from on the height. The Burjskyscraper.com site does not indicate any new height increases since reporting that construction has reached supertall proportions. If I am missing the sited source please let me know otherwise I am curious as to how the update for December 12 at 94 stories came to be. Emperor 09:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are you getting this new height data? 

message: As the new year approaches and the 100 floor mark will certainly be some amazing achievements.
A good picture update is in order considering it is 2007 and rumor has it we are at 100 floors. Emperor 05:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction is getting exciting 

message: I found a website that seems to have some information, I list it -- 219.88.55.69 06:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Poor website, bring less info than article. I am deleting it. --Jklamo 07:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Website 

message: Someone put less floors for the Burj, before it was 115 stories and at 441 Meters now it's 110 and 389 Meters, is this true? and if it isn't some please correct it. The Burj Dubai must be over 400 Meters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StevenT1 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burj Dubai Floors 

message: I've read online that there are severe problems due to cracks found within the foundations, and it may not go any higher than it already is. Shouldn't this article reflect that? The Mayor 18:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because it's merely rumor. --Golbez 03:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cracks in the foundations? 

message: There is one particular section in the article (Race for the top) that mentions Al Burj as being a 'formidable threat' to Burj Dubai.  It incorrectly stated Al Burj's height, which I have since fixed (the height in the article was at 700m, whereas the true height will be much taller at 1200m).  However, this sort of compromises everything else in that section.  Clearly, if Al Burj will be that much taller, then there will be no need for statements about comparability. Sherwelthlangley 22:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An issue in 'Race for the top' 

message: An article on www.rediff.com seems to copy this Wikipedia page.  They failed to cite/acknowledge Wikipedia (or anyone else), and put their own copyright on the page.
The article "This will be world's tallest building" (http://inhome.rediff.com/cms/print.jsp?docpath=//money/2007/jun/07tall.htm) includes language that is verbatim copied from Burj Dubai. (Note: I deliberately nowiki'd the Rediff.com link to avoid contributing to their search engine hits).  The rediff article is dated June 7, 2007, bearing the following copyright label:  "(c) 2003 rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed."
Much of the copied language was written on this wikipedia article last month or earlier; a very small proportion of it was written by me (and yesterday was the first time I ever heard of Rediff.com).  Rediff doesn't cite anyone: wikipedia, the sources cited in the Wikipedia article, other news sources, first hand sources, etc.
This seems like a violation of Wikipedia's GFDL (and just general dishonest plagiarism).  Does anyone know anything more about this?
see also my comments and any potential replies on Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#What_if_someone_copies_FROM_Wikipedia.2C_then_adds_THEIR_copyright.3F
and Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Pqr#Rediff.com, and Talk:Rediff.com
Fredwerner 15:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rediff.com copies this article, then adds their OWN copyright to it 

message: The projected final height of the Burj Dubai is officially being kept a secret due to competition; however, figures released by a contractor on the project have suggested a height of around 808 m (2,651 ft), that is about 3 m (10 ft) over one-half of a mile.[4] Based on this height, the total number of habitable floors is expected to be around 162. However, on the project's official website, an interior graphic of an elevator panel shows floor numbers up to 195. The latest photo of the Burj Dubai's construction plan shows the roof to be 681.7 m (2,236.5 ft) which would make the 195 floors shown on the elevator a reasonable number.[5]
Can someone please correct the figures in this paragraph. Because if the height is expected to be 808m and therefore the number of habitable floors is 162, 195 floors with 681.7m does not make sense... I don't know which figure is correct, but one of them must be wrong!
:It needs to be clarified but bear in mind there's a difference between the height to the roof/last floor and the total height including antennas Nil Einne 11:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  floors and height 

message: The last line doesn't seem to make any sense and I don't know what it's supposed to say...can anyone reword it?
Just an opinion, I don't think the second sentence of the first paragraph reads well as it swaps tenses. Instead of 'Upon its completion, it is the tallest man-made structure' consider 'Upon its completion, it is expected to be the tallest man-made structure'87.112.17.76 13:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Line 

message: I found this edit which butchers the paragraph with the height speculations, but I can't spare the time right now to fix it.  Any volunteers?  --Doradus 17:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix paragraph about height speculations 

message: This picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:32393164_a13451dbf2.jpg contains multiple errors:
* Taipei 101 is shown with a roof height of 509m and an antenna at more than 600m. In reality the roof is at 449m and the antenna is at 509m (according to its own wikipedia article).
* Petronas Towers are shown with roofs at 452m and antennas at more than 500m. In reality the roofs are at around 400m (can't find any more precise number) and the antennas go up to 452m (according to their own wikipedia article).
* The Empire State Building's antenna height is shown at slightly more than 400m when it is in fact 449m (according to its wikipedia article).
I really wonder how one can screw up such important facts, when it is obvious that whoever made that image spent quite some time working on it ? Given that this image is already considered for deletion, I think it should be deleted immediately. -- RRX
:Fortunately, it was removed as a copyright violation. --Golbez 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple errors in "the competition" picture 

message: I just fixed a link from "Ryungyong" to "Ryugyong Hotel|Ryungyong" which previously went to a redirect to "Ryugyong Hotel".  Seems the quote may have been intended to refer to the Ryugyong (1 N) project, not to a Ryungyong (2 N's) project. Can the quote be verified?  Don 00:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ryungyong Hotel 

message: * It's my understanding that a building can't be officially considered the tallest unless it's complete (i.e. it can claim the title when the ribbon is cut). Taipei 101, for example, didn't receive the title of tallest building until it opened. Dubai's claims in July 2007 that it's the tallest seem to have jumped the gun. 61.30.11.130 08:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 2007 claims of record height premature? 

message: Where is that caption located?  That needs to be fixed to the proper tense.  Corvus cornix 23:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Burj Dubai has been the world's tallest building since 2009.*"

message: Where is the Burj Dubai built exactly?awesomisticisms 04:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: There is a paragraph in 'Purpose' that states : "The silvery glass-sheathed concrete building will restore the title of Earth's tallest structure to the Middle East — a title not held by the region since Lincoln Cathedral upset the four millennial reign of Egypt's Great Pyramid of Giza in 1311 AD - although its architecture was largely designed by an American firm." What does it matter who is designing the building.... the point being made in the statement is that the tallest building in the world is now in the Middle East, not what the nationality of the designers is. If you really want to be technical, then the tallest building in America, Sears Tower,  was largely designed by Srinivasa, an Indian, and
Fazlur Khan, a Bangladeshi, who worked for Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. --Jibran1 21:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The architects are already mentioned, this is an attempt at POV. --Golbez 21:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just that but it employs Indian construction workers and South Korean contractors and is funded by Arabs. Without any of these (and the designers) the tower couldn't be built Rahmalec 17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "American designers"

message: Why is the Canary Wharf tower shown in the height diagaram? It doesn't appear to be the next tallest building in line... seems like a random addition... TheHYPO 15:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right.  I created the diagram and I'm british.  There was a very similar diagram in the article, but it wasn't free and contained several errors.  My diagram simply use the same set of buildings.  Astronaut 09:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canary Wharf? 

message: Where is the evidence for this claim? "As of 10 August 2007, the tower's developers reported the Burj Dubai's height is 545.4 m (1,789.4 ft), with 147 completed floors, surpassing the Taipei 101 (509.2 m (1,671 ft)) as the tallest high-rise building in the world. [4]"
The reference (#4) does not support the claim. Neither does the developers web page.
Vreese 08:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: August 10 height claim

message: What is the opinion on the creation of a timeline like in these edits?
I've done some light copy-edit work since then, but I'm not so sure a timeline is a better way of presenting the information compared to how it was.  Astronaut 11:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height Timeline 

message: The convert template gets translated to over 12kb of code every time it is used.  Therefore, where it was used to convert metres to feet, I have replaced it with the much smaller m to ft template.  I believe this is a better fix than that used by MetsBot on 31 August 2007 (which I quickly reverted).  It is still easy to maintain the article without having to keep an eye on the measurements in feet, and it should load slightly quicker.  Astronaut 13:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convert template