Talk:Burj Al Arab/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Burj Al Arab. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Colani Inspiration?

I've seen a rough drawing of the Burj al-Arab in a book by Colani, without any comment. Surely the architecture fits the values of Colani, but I've never seen any reference to him, especially not on the internet. Can anybody shed some light how the design of the hotel emerged? Thanks :-) Peter S. 23:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Costs

I really doubt this statement:

"So expensive was the hotel's design and construction that it is estimated that to reach breakeven, it must be entirely booked for 400 years."

Because at an average of $2000/night x 202 rooms x 365 days equals about $200,000,000 in revunue/year alone. Plus, what company is going to build a hotel that won't turn a profit in anyone's lifetime. That's just absurd. -- Queue 17:45, Sep 17, 2005 (UTC)

You're forgetting a few things. 1) Operating costs. You're assuming that ever dollar made by the hotel is profit. This is far from true -- it's not cheap to keep up such a large and ornate building. (remeber that one million liter fish tank?) 2) No company built the Burj al-Arab. It was built by the government to put Dubai on the map -- much like the Burj Dubai, which also will probably not be profitable. --Quasipalm 21:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's true about the costs, and the operating expenses. That's one of the reasons it's like an "only in Dubai" type of place. The operating costs alone don't warrant it as a profitable business. But... it brings attention to Dubai and therefore business and travel, so... I guess that's the point.

Meaning of the name

Wouldn't "Arabian Tower" be more of a good English translation, rather than the literal one "Tower of the Arab"...?

It is given as "tower of the Arabs" and "the angel of Arabia" in two different places within this article. Which is it? Tronno

I tried to find something definitive when someone changed "tower" to "queen" in the intro but didn't have much luck. Certainly consensus on various other sites about the Burj al-Arab and the Burj Dubai is that "burj" means "tower". —HorsePunchKid→龜 01:54, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

The Arabic word العرب al-`Arab is actually a collective plural -- normally you have to use the adjective form `Arabi to express a singular... AnonMoos 21:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Nomenclature

I reverted the edits that changed Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf. The former is the most common name, and is the title of the Wikipedia article about it. Arabian Gulf is not even a redirect to it, but is a disambiguation page which leads to a link to Persian Gulf. Please do not make edits to make political points. Also, there is no need to change British spelling to American or vice versa (as with fiberglass). MCB 23:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Guests

Several world-class dignitaries have stayed at the hotel, such as the Sultan and Princess of Brunei, the King of Saudi Arabia, Former US Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, Queen Rania of Jordan, Superstar Amitabh Bachchan of Bollywood, former US Vice President Al Gore, President Nelson Mandela, and tennis stars Martina Hingis, Anna Kournikova and Serena Williams.

Here it is anyway.--Jerryseinfeld 00:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget Michael Jackson! PoorLeno 13:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's anything but surprising that some of the rich and famous stay in what's considered the best hotel in the world. So who'd be interested in these facts? And who should verify them? -- H005 15:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the list of celebrity guests. Other buildings around the world will have much larger lists but what's the point? -- Shameer

Layout Fix, Please!!!

Can somebody who knows how to do it please finally fix the layout? The main floating image on the top right hasn't had text flowing next to it (only below) for quite some time now. Thanks! Matthiasworldwide 03:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a layout expert, alas, but can you describe what you are seeing? The article layout, text flow, etc., look pretty normal in my browser. Thanks, --MCB 04:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I get the whitespace all down the side of the data box, it looked awful. It was easily corrected just by moving the three pics to lower down the article - Adrian Pingstone 12:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but it actually looked a little bit better in my browser before the latest change. (I am not suggesting changing it back; it's no big deal either way, really.) But I mention this because layout is often a product of which browser you use, what size browser window, and your Wikipedia skin. With Firefox 1.5.0.4 on MacOS 10.4.6 using Monobook, there is little difference between the two, but the text flowed a tiny better previously. So it might be a good idea to test a page in various browsers, windows, and skins to see how it looks. Cheers, --MCB 16:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. It looks better now (main picture on top right and text now beginning on same level to the left of it) but is still not perfect (three smaller pictures do not float below main one but slightly offset towards the center). Using IE6/WXPMCE2K5SP2 right now. Maybe it looks great on an Apple or in Firefox but most folks still use IE6 so it should look acceptable there as well, IMHO. Matthiasworldwide 02:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Location

I was of the view that all of the suites faced the beach (or faced the ocean, or something), with the hotel being on an island set out from the city as it is. Is this true? Not much is said regarding the layout - isn't it part of a whole neighbourhood of man-made islands, with expensive houses to be reached by boat etc. - Matthew238 00:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox image

I reverted the unrequested/undiscussed change of the infobox image. The older image is a much better and more representative photo of the building, showing the Burj's best-known profile. The other photo also duplicated the head-on view of the building which is the first photo in the Notable Attributes section. --MCB 17:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Word replacement

I replaced the word hyperbole with exaggeration in the notable attributes section. I felt that exaggeration was a simpler word which got the job done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.196.110 (talk • contribs)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. However, please don't change words that you somehow don't like or appear not to know the meaning of. Hyperbole is the precise term for what was meant, and it's wikilinked for people who would like to investigate further. And furthermore, you replaced it with a misspelling. --MCB 16:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Irony?

There was a considerable controversy regarding the claim that the structure looks like a huge Christian cross when viewed by anyone sailing into city. Some locals claim that this was an intentional move on the part of the British architects. This issue is more ironic when one considers that the Tower of the Arabs is widely considered to be Dubai’s most important landmark.

I'm not sure if 'ironic' is quite the word here; there's no irony if it was intentional, and if not intentional then it's just an unfortunate blunder of some sort, if even that. In any case I fail to see the irony. Naphra 09:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article seems to have some major problems with NPOV. The criticism section attacks the two criticisms it lists and ultimately concludes that all of the goals of the tower have been met without citing any sources. Many parts of the article read as though they were written by the Burj al-Arab marketing staff.

I"m not sure about that, but I certainly think it could be reworded and sources added. I'll get on with the job if I get some free time...Bedesboy 10:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no explanation for the phrase "ignores it's context" i am absolutely clueless as to what that means, or how it can begin to be stated as a reference-able fact.

Height

It seems extremely doubtful this is the world's tallest hotel. -- stewacide 05:19, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

It is, according to several different sources. I didn't believe it either, at first. -- Robert

It is the Worlds tallest building used fully as a hotel. There are some taller buildings in the world which have hotels in them, but the buildings are also used for other purposes. There is a building in China or Canada which has a hotel located from some 44th floor and above, but the lower floors are not meant for Hotel purpose. Also, there is a purpose built hotel building in North Korea, which was built as the tallest hotel building in the world (taller than the Burj al Arab) but it is not operational yet, due to some political and economic reasons. Hence, it is not yet the tallest hotel in the world. For more info clik on the link below; Purpose built tallest hotel-Ryugyong Hotel (incomplete construction)

It's the tallest dedicated hotel -- there are certainly taller hotel rooms around the world, but this building is the tallest building that is just hotel, and not above several floors of office building. --Quasipalm 21:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What about the Rose Rotana Suites? Nach0king 19:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"connected to the mainland only by a curving path." It's not a path, it is most definitely a road. You can drive right up to the front door. .--Commking 1 Sep 2005

Major restructure, 23 January 07

This article was flagged for a clean-up, so I did.

I amalgamated similar information, created more sensible categories, removed redundant pictures and moved interesting ones. I also made a passable attempt to re-word the whole article; it read like a brochure.

More information is required in the "Criticism" section, for which the main argument seems to be, "People hate the hotel because it's so awesome."

If you feel the re-write meets the obligations for a clean-up, please remove the flag. (talk to) Caroline Sanford 11:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job, thanks for your efforts. I agree that the criticism section has much room for imporvement, so much even that I support its deletion unless somebody comes up with something more sound and with proper sources. -- H005 13:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC) I moved this section to the bottom of this page where it should be, I hope you don't mind.

Today: footnotes. I re-wrote the footnotes in accordance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. I also checked and verified each footnote, and where they couldn't be found, removed them.

I also removed the criticism section: you're right, H005, since it contains no actual criticism, I removed it altogether.

Lastly, I edited the external links. There are a few of them, so I made some sub-categories. Everybody loves categories. (talk to) Caroline Sanford 13:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this discussion. On reflection, you're right, the criticism is not extensive enough as it stands to merit a section. However, I think the sentence "Another critic includes the city of Dubai as well: “both the hotel and the city, after all, are monuments to the triumph of money over practicality. Both elevate style over substance.”[12]" should be incorporated into the rest of it. I'll do a draft. Sylvain1972 14:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I think the section should stay. The section contains legitimate criticism, not in the sense of negative appraisals but criticism in the sense of reviews by architecture critics. I've changed the heading to try to convey this. What do you think? Sylvain1972 14:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I like it: I think this is a much better idea than just deleting the section :) It makes the criticisms both valid and relevant. Thanks for making the changes. (talk to) Caroline Sanford 20:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Images

I am planning on creating a new section called "Image Gallery." Do I have support for this? There are so many images and I believe that it would help clear up the article. I propose that repetitive and simple images be put in the gallery while important images (and ones that correspond directly with specific sections) be kept in the article. For an example of this, go to Eiffel Tower. Leitmanp 07:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, i didn't read this before moving the images, i was being bold!!!. I have moved many to a gallery section. It's location could be changed as could several of the images. personal preference i suppose. I think they are all corresponding. See what you think. Woodym555 11:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As of now, I beleive that you did a good job. Maybe later I might begin to feel bored of seeing the same image on top and want it changed. But other than that, I like it. Good job!! Only one thing that is bothering me: I have decided to change the name of the section from "Gallery" to "Image Gallery." Sorry, but I like the latter title better. I do not know why, but I just do. Leitmanp 00:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a point for contention! Looks good. I moved them because when i looked at it originally the bathroom picture was in the restaurant section. Just seemed slightly off to me! Woodym555 10:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The article is named Burj al-Arab, however there is no hyphen on the official website; it's always spelled Burj Al Arab. Is there a specific reason for the different spelling? Otherwise I'd suggest renaming the article. -- H005 14:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

On most wikipedia articles that have the 'al' in them, which is Arabic for 'the', the general convention is to use the "X al-Y" format. However, some articles don't follow this and if enough people think its a good idea to rename this article then why not. Asabbagh 17:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Even though the hotel's site renders it differently, the vast majority of citations I see in the media are to the form "Burj al-Arab" (with lower case "al-" and hyphen). WP:TITLE says to use "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize", and that "[n]ames of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists". In addition, all the relevant examples in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic) show the standard transliteration as "X al-Y" as you mention. So I don't think the article should be renamed. Cheers, --MCB 00:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. - Anas ^Talk? 12:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that "Burj al-Arab" should be changed to "Burj Al Arab." First of all, it is the official name. Why use a name for something if it does not correspond to it? To the argument that " 'Burj al-Arab' is used in the media" is not a very good one. Just because everyone else is using the name incorrectly does not mean that Wikipedia should also. Also, it was stated that the title should be what the majority of people would recognize. I must confess that sometimes I go to Wikipedia to find out the exact spelling of proper nouns. If someone did this for the Burj Al Arab, then they would be mis-informed. In Dubai, the name is spelled as three seperate words, all capitalized, and no hyphens. Examples can be found in the local media: Gulf News: Dubai's first gold coin souvenir celebrates leadership's vision. The name of the landmark that is mentioned is "Burj Al Arab" and not "Burj al-Arab." The true name is "Burj Al Arab" and the article should demonstrate that. Leitmanp 02:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Most commonly referred to with the hyphen.--Hús ö nd 18:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Approve Húsönd, Are you talking about what most people call this hotel? Because then that means most people are using the wrong name. Changing it on Wikipedia would help to make sure the true name is used. Let me create a theoretical situation: Someone enters politics and their name is misspelled in a newspaper. The people in the constituency learn the person's wrong name. Does this means that the true name should stay because that is what people know the politician as? I would believe that the name would be fixed and the real name of the politician would be taught to the residents. This should be the same for the Burj Al Arab. The real name, even if it is not widely used, should be taught so that the unauthentic names of this hotel are pushed out of people's mental dictionary. Leitmanp 00:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, articles are named after their most common usage rather than by an official title (although by all means the official form must be mentioned). See Rhode Island (not State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations).--Hús ö nd 19:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
To respond to your argument about the title of Rhode Island: The reason the shorter name is used is because it is shorter. People always refer to it as Rhode Island and not the other title because of its size. But, as for the Burj Al Arab, the name is not long. The titles that both of us are "fighting" for are short and have exactly the same number of characters (spaces included). Neither title is excessivly long, so the argument about the difference between Rhode Island's two names is not valid here. But let me think of another example that goes along this route. The United Nations is the official name of the international orgainization. People, in speech, refer to it as the "UN" (and so does the organization itself). The article on Wikipedia is United Nations. Even though "UN" is the most common usage to refer to the organization, it is known by its official name (even though the official name is longer). Leitmanp 01:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. (Please see my remarks above, in this section, regarding WP:TITLE as well.) Wikipedia's mission is not to change peoples' usages, but to reflect them. We are less interested in the official or "authentic" name than what is actually used. (In the dictionary/encyclopedia world, this is known as "descriptivism" as opposed to "prescriptivism".) We list The Hague primarily under than name, rather than the more official "Den Haag" or "'s-Gravenhage". In this case, there could be a redirect for the hotel's own spelling and perhaps a sentence or parenthetical in the article. --MCB 00:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying, but you have to think of this at a local level. In Dubai, Arabic and English are widely used. Almost everyone speaks both languages. When people are writing in English, they spell "Burj Al Arab" as three words, each one with a capital letter at the front, and no hyphen. If this is the local usage of the term (and do not forget that it was not translated from Arabic to English because it is already in English), then shouldn't this be reflected in Wikipedia? The hotel itself uses "Burj Al Arab," the local media uses "Burj Al Arab," and many places I have seen the name used, it was "Burj Al Arab." Lastly, what is used internationally by many people could be wrong. Just because many people all over the world say something does not make it true. The local residents are the experts on this and what they use, should be used internationally. Leitmanp 03:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Support - I have to disagree with you Husond. According to the news and several other travel sites it is the "Burj Al Arab" or "Burj al Arab." --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Support - Per usage on the website. Reginmund 06:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Although they are difficult to separate when searching with Google, there does seem to be a slight preference for "Burj Al Arab" over other versions. Independent sources, such as the BBC are mixed in their usage. Against that background, the company's consistent self-identification on the website http://www.burj-al-arab.com/ as "Burj Al Arab" is the clinching factor. I have seen no evidence that "Burj al-Arab" is used more commonly. This article has been renamed from Burj al-Arab to Burj Al Arab as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 10:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

want to know about detail history of Burj al Arab?

please contact at coolchintan18@gmail.com if authority can interact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.168.35 (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Space below Construction heading

Is it possible that someone can get rid of the empty space below the heading of the Construction section? Something like this happened before and someone fixed it. Can it be done again? Leitmanp 02:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed it for now. A better solution would be to expand the WP:LEAD and the construction section so that the infobox can fit better. Woodym555 09:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

New Burj Al Arab photos

I have new photos of the Burj Al Arab, six of them. I do not want to just put all of them into the article because I am afraid of crowding it up again. Also the images are repetitive so I want to see what other people think about the images and where to put them. Here they are:

Any suggestions on which ones to use and where to put them?

Leitmanp 20:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, forget about this. I have added the images to the Burj Al Arab page of Commons and the Burj Al Arab category on Commons. When people need these images, they can go just go the Commons link under the "See also" section. Leitmanp 08:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone think there should be a photo looking from the persian gulf? I've heard that some people are offended because from that angle there is a giant cross on the side of the building, and some people believe that the architects purposely put a giant symbol of christianity in a muslim country. plqgnmv 18 November 2007

Rose Tower now complete

Per Emporis, the Rose Tower is now officially complete, and therefore has become the world's tallest building used only as a hotel. This page should be updated. Rai-me 02:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the Rose Tower is not yet open. True, the tower is finished. But since it has not officially opened as a hotel (yet), the Burj Al Arab is still number one. --Leitmanp 03:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the clarification. Rai-me 13:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Great quality images

Here are seven new images that show the Burj Al Arab. These image are of great quality. The color in some of them is almost perfect. They include close-up shots and the image that User:plqgnmv asked for above. Should we put them in the article? And if so, where? Here they are:

Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Reviews by Architecture Critics Citations

At the moment, no architecture critic is mentioned by name, save The Gaurdian critic, and the citation given for those first three unnamed critics is incomplete. I'm new to wikipedia, but it seems like each critic should be named near their quote and that the citation should be to an actual source. Borholquib (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ice Hotel?

I don't really understand the meaning of this part:

"During the construction phase, to lower the interior temperature, the building was cooled by one degree per day over 6 months."

So, under a period of 200 days they cooled the hotel 200 degrees? I'm a Celsius person, but this seems alot even for Farenheit. Could someone explain to me, and we could change that section to something understandable. Axelve (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should probably remove it. The paragraph's sole source does not have anything about cooling the Burj Al Arab. I decided to go into the archives of this article and find when, and by who, the information was first added. Karmarooster (talk · contribs) made several changes in November 2006. The information about the cooling was sourced. But that source no longer exists. I was thinking about putting a message on Karmarooster's talk page, but his/her last edit was also in November 2006, so they probably do not keep track of new messages to their talk page. Since the cooling of the tower does not seem very important, I think it should be removed. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 05:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi this is Karmarooster, i originally made several changes to this article for an architecture class at the university of virginia. i just wanted to help clarify some information that has since been 'corrupted.' regarding this cooling process, i feel that is important because it is a testament to the size of the building and the degree of engineering that went into its construction. here is the original text as copied from my 2006 edit. "The atrium is so large, in fact, that designers had to take special action during the installation of the sail. To lower the interior temperature, the building was cooled by half degree increments over a period of three to six months. This was to prevent large amounts of “condensation or in fact even a rain cloud from forming in the hotel during the period of construction.” " That should make it more clear. the building was not cooled by 1 degree ever day for 6 months, but rather cooled by fractions of degrees over a several month period. if, instead, the atrium was cooled 10 degrees over say, a week, the theory is that it could actually form a rain cloud inside the building. it seems rather incredible, and maybe too crazy to be true. however the source was from a video on youtube, that was a National Geographic. the video had lots of information regarding engineering. that original video is no longer available on youtube. however there is a different show called MegaStructures that is available, here is a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow321Ximh70&feature=related. i'm not sure if this video contains the same information.

as for the criticism section, it has been modified quite a bit. the sources that i sighted for that section came from a book called The Architecture of the U.A.E. I got it at the School of Architecture library at UVA, but i cannot find it on amazon. here is the original paragraph:

The Burj al Arab has has attracted criticism as well as praise, described as “a contradiction of sorts, considering how well-designed and impressive the construction ultimately proves to be.”[13] The contradiction here seems to be related to the hotel’s extreme opulence. “This extraordinary investment in state-of-the-art construction technology stretches the limits of the ambitious urban imagination in an exercise that is largely due to the power of excessive wealth.” Yet it seems the criticism is at least somewhat off the mark, as it ignores the building’s iconic nature, as well as Dubai’s urban development as a whole. Another critic includes the city of Dubai as well: “both the hotel and the city, after all, are monuments to the triumph of money over practicality. Both elevate style over substance.”[14] Within ten years, Dubai will be the host of the world’s tallest building, the Burj Dubai, as well as a dozen artificial land projects. The result will change Dubai into an ultra-modern urban zone of commercialism and tourism. The building’s design cannot be faulted for trying to accomplish its goal of becoming synonomous with Dubai itself. As an iconic architectural form, the Burj al Arab succeeds in implementing an elegant structural design. The white sail and exoskeleton, simple and refined, call to mind to the white marble heavily favored in Moghul architecture. The building becomes not only an icon for Dubai, but symbolizes the growing importance of capitalism as well. “Emulating the quality of palatial interiors, in an expression of wealth for the mainstream, a theatre of opulence is created in Burj al Arab … The result is a baroque effect.”[15] As such, the building accomplishes its goals by becoming a recognizable architectural form serving as an icon for Dubai symbolizing the on-going architectural transformation."

hope this helps. let me know if there is anything else i can contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karmarooster (talk • contribs) 19:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Unit mixup

In the first part of the article (the introduction) we hear the Burj Al Arab's dimentions explained by the metric system... For instance: "At 321 metres (1,053 ft), it is the second tallest building (..) is nine meters taller than the Burj Al Arab, and (..) topped Burj Al Arab's height at 333 m (1,090 ft)", etc.). However, lower down, when we are told the dimentions of the aquarium, we are told that the tank is "holding roughly 35,000 cubic feet (over one million litres) of water" - Should not litres be the preferred measurment? The article then continues "The tank, made of acrylic glass in order to withstand the water pressure, is about 18 centimetres (7.1 in) thick", once again returning to the metric system. Does anyone agree with me on this, or am I just being stupid here? 212.10.50.192 (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right. Per WP:UNITS, the metric system is preferred as the primary conversion (i.e. not in brackets), especially for non-US-related topics. Thanks for pointing that out. Also, when posting a comment to a talk page, please use the 'New comment' or '+' button at the top of the page to create a new section. --timsdad ^(talk) 23:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Owl City Use

The Burj Al Arab was used as cover art for Owl City's new disc, _Ocean Eyes_. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.20.148.40 (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No Image?!

I am extraordinarily surprised to see that there is no image in the infobox of this article -- it appears that the one previously there was removed by a bot following deletion on Commons. However, I think that this article (being about an iconic structure) absolutely requires a picture of the building -- having none severely limits its effectiveness in describing the subject.

There seem to be some copyright issues regarding photos of buildings taken in the UAE, but one could probably use the same fair-use rationale as on the Burj Khalifa picture here. Unfortunately I don't have access to any pictures (or I would upload one myself :P ), but hopefully somebody can handle this. –The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 23:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

7 stars rating

It's not 5 stars, but 7 stars rating hotel. --86.100.66.70 17:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see the note in the infobox. It says: "While officially this hotel has a 5-Star rating, the Burj Al Arab says it is a 5-Star Deluxe hotel, and it says it is the world's only 7-Star hotel only in advertising." In reality, hotels can only have 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 stars. But the Burj Al Arab says it is a 5-Star Deluxe Hotel. The 7-Star rating only is used in advertising and to glamourise the hotel. Leitmanp 02:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Burj al Arab backed off from the 7-star rating about three years ago. There is no such thing as a 7-star hotel, 5-star deluxe is the highest rating. Have editied for accuracy. --78.100.235.101 (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Press release from Jumeirah (owners of BAA): 'Burj Al Arab known by most as the world’s only 7 star hotel, but as there is no official 7-star grading, we position our hotel as ‘The world’s most luxurious’, rated as 5 star deluxe. The worldwide classification for hotel ratings does not go beyond the five star rating. All of our Jumeirah hotels in Dubai are given their official ratings by the Dubai Department of Tourism and Commerce Marketing (DTCM). The history behind our being awarded a 7-star rating, was when we hosted a journalist on opening the hotel in 1999 and in her article she noted that one cannot recognize Burj Al Arab’s standards with 5-stars. She noted that Burj Al Arab had to be the first 7-star luxury hotel in the world. That’s where it came from but officially Burj Al Arab is a 5 star Hotel'

Straight from the horses mouth to the world's media. Please stop re-inserting '7-stars'. --Weirdingmodule (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use images

Please add fair use images to the article Burj Al Arab! --84.61.131.141 (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

2nd or 4th tallest hotel in the world??

The article contradicts itself, saying in the beginning it is the 4th tallest hotel in the world, and then saying it is the 2nd tallest hotel in the world. Is it referring to buildings that are "mixed use" hotels as the extra two being taller than it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.176.118 (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's indeed an issue. 2nd largest would be correct imho - because:

Emirates Park Tower 1 & 2 (topped out, but not completed - thus no hotel use so far)
Rose Tower (hotel use -> #1)
Ryugyong Hotel (construction started in the 80s, but it hasn't been completed - there's only a little chance that this will ever be a hotel)
Burj Al Arab (hotel use -> #2)

Next question is: Will the Emirates Park Tower taken into account as one hotel or two buildings? If the latter then both get 1st place and Rose Tower the 2nd - or Emirates Park Tower gets #1 twice, #2 is omitted and thus Rose Tower will #3? --217.18.181.18 (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

1995 photos.

I have personal photos of the early stage of construction (1995). I'll add later on. СЛУЖБА (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have taken them yourself, and you're intending to upload them with a free license, please upload them to Wikimedia Commons instead. The upload page for personal works is here, or you can try the new Upload Wizard here (which should be easier to use). Regards. -- Orionist ★ talk 13:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

Why is THAT image in the infobox? It's not the correct building (well, it kinda is, but this is not the real Burj Al Arab). It seems like a model of the hotel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahee (talk • contribs) 20:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Burj al Arab 2009.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Burj al Arab 2009.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please add a fair use image to the article “Burj Al Arab”! --84.61.191.235 (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Heli-pad

The heli-pad is very big and it can also be turned ijn to a tennis court. For example Rodger Federer and Andre Agassi played on that heli-pad for a little knock about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.72.141 (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Burj Al Arab (2).jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Burj Al Arab (2).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.200.113.244 (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"disc" at top

on one caption in this article, it says the "disc at top" is a helicopter landing pad. I don't have a "source", but a picture I saw showed it from above to be an exotic tennis court. So it being a helicopter landing spot may be inaccurate.

The helipad was converted to a tennis court for federrer (sp?) when he came to Dubai, other than that, it has always been a helipad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.182.49.190 (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Failed Helipad? Wind blowing around the nearby structures could make it difficult to land on that helipad, turbulent air flow. I would be scared to play tennis on that pad, knowing its a long way down. I wonder how many tennis and golf balls are filling up the Gulf? --Flightsoffancy (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the tower is far enough away from surrounding buildings and several skyscrapers in huge metropolitan areas have helipads on them. It is in-fact a helipad and it was converted to a tennis court for one tournament. I recall and news article, if I can find it I will cite it for you where I believe if you wanted to rent the pad for tennis you can now do so...most likely at great cost tho. TheArchitect91 (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

roof height?

Does anyone know the top floor's height? Total height is given either 321 or 322 meters, so there is two figures for that too. Helipad is given as 210 meters and the restaurant 200 meters high, and the highest floor seems to be between those. Though, if the helipad can be counted as a floor, then that's the highest. 82.141.73.182 (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)