Jump to content

Talk:Burj Khalifa/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Update explained

Had to update description of Burj Khalifa to tallest [i]currently[/i] standing structure, as the tallest man made structure is part of the 6-hour tethered tower Hale experiment by LiftPort in 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfyredragon (talk • contribs) 00:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Starfyredragon. Just so you know from now on, we here at Wikipedia are used to seeing new talk page topics placed at the bottom of the page, so that is why I moved it. Also please be so kind to sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of you message. This helps all of us keep track of who is saying what. Thanks.
As for the issue itself. I am not completely opposed to mentioning the tethered object but if someone wants to state Burj Khalifa is the tallest man-made structure ever built, I would have a hard time refuting that based on the temporary existence of an object that amounted to little more than a "ribbon" tied to a balloon. Just my opinion, interested to see what other editors have to say. Thank you for raising this to our attention. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 02:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
This is an interesting question, especially since structure has so many meanings (some of which have nothing at all to do with buildings). From the definitions in this Encyclopedia, it would be hard to refute that it is the "world's tallest building". However, if you look at nonbuilding structure, we get into more trouble. For instance, the floating Perdido in the Gulf of Mexico is in a water depth of 2,438 meters (way taller than Burj Khalifa or the LiftPort experiment). This is more equivalent (except in water) to the LiftPort structure (a floating object tethered to the ground). I'm not an expert on how tallest buildings are presented in WikiPedia, but strictly from an amateur point of view, it would be much less ambiguous if we used the more specific "building" rather than "structure" in this article. Don Lammers (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
If you take a look at List of tallest buildings and structures in the world‎, and some of its related articles, it mentions some debate over the definition of buildings and structures. In particular, almost everyone excludes the part of a structure that is below water, and says that tension leg structures are excluded because they "...are not considered constant structures"; but it doesn't go on to define 'constant' as used in that context. The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, which is generally recognised as an authority on such matters, maintains lists of two types of structures: 'buildings' and 'telecommunication/observation towers'. The Hale experiment doesn't really qualify as a building or a tower, however it might fall into another category. Perhaps the one it is closest to is a cable car, a long flexible cable attached to the ground at one end and another fixed or temporary point at the other. If that was the case however, at just 1,600 m it certainly isn't the tallest - this one in Iran for example, lifts gondalas 1,840 m vertically. Astronaut (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the input everyone. A while back at the talk page Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in the world#Tallest Manmade object I actually suggested that maybe it can be mentioned in the section where it talks about tension leg platforms. Starfyredragon didn't care for my characterization of the LiftPort object as "little more than an ribbon tied to balloon". Yes, I intentionally understated the nature of the structure. But let me put it this way: What if someone did manage to actually tie a...say, 2,000 m long ribbon to a really big, high-tech ballon and floated straight up 2,000 m? Would we then have to call it the tallest man made structure?
Astronaut, great post, but I don't quite agree with the comparison to a cable car. The cable is supported at several points up a natural slope, never really achieving a great deal of height from the ground directly below. Indeed it may eventually achieve a large net verticle gain in elevation, but so would also certain power lines, correct? or a railway that goes over a mountain pass, or roads and highways for that matter, and would all this be much different than someone simply stringing a very long continous rope or string up the slopes of Mount Everest? Which they practically do every year anyway. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 06:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It needs update, 'preceded by' section...

Now burj khalifa preceded by "Abraj Al Bait", not "taipei 101" please update it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratikmbm1122 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Abraj Al Bait was completed in 2012, 2 years after Burj Khalifa and therefore Abraj Al Bait cannot have preceeded Burj Khalifa at anything. Astronaut (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hymenocallis controversy

Astronaut- My daughter used this Wikipedia article, among other sources, to write her school report. In the process we learned and appreciated what might have inspired the architect(s) to design the Burj, for example, the spiral minaret. Then as a final exercise, we went back to this article, and added our contribution (also warning our teacher that any similarities were not due to plagiarism!) Thanks for cleaning up the mess we made, but still retaining the essence of our contribution.

About the Hymenocallis as inspiration, we also noted the lack of evidence and the possible controversy among the SOM firm members' ranks. Also, it seems the flower and its relatives are probably not native to the Middle East but are probably used there in landscaping. In the end we decided to keep the flower and its photo in our report, because the official web site <http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/en/> also states that the flower inspired the design. -- "Team" Marinath (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Height incorrect

Why does the height given in this article no longer match the source (CTBUH)? I gather from this section of Talk that it once did match. Is the source material outdated? Krychek (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I moved your new question to the end of the page and refactored it to link back to the previous section. It might be related to height, but that was an old discussion from nearly 4 years ago. Astronaut (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The height data currently given in the infobox still matches the data from the CTBUH. Were you seeing some other heights? Astronaut (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I had several pages open at the time. I must have had the CTBUH confused with one of the others. When I figure it out, I'll go pester THEM about being inaccurate! Thanks. Krychek (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"The" in title

If "Burj Khalifa" is a building, then shouldn't it be called "the Burj Khalifa"? I don't know of any English grammar rule specifically covering this, but I can't think of a situation where a building is not referred to as "the". Transphasic (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I recall a brief discussion about this from long ago (see here), but the title is just "Burj Khalifa". Anyway, almost all tall building articles do not have "The". Astronaut (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.hotelmanagement-network.com/projects/Armani/
    Triggered by \bhotelmanagement-network\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/burj/
    Triggered by \bdesignbuild-network\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Pinnacle Height of a building

This building is the tallest in the world since end of 2009, and with the antenna spire or roof is 2,717 feet (or 2,722 feet if updated). --Allen Talk 17:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is what is already says in the article. Do you have a question? Astronaut (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
No questions, what I know this building is the tallest one. --AllenHAcNguyen (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Burj Khalifa.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Burj Khalifa.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 12, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-11-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa
Burj Khalifa is a skyscraper in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and currently the tallest man-made structure in the world, at 829.8 m (2,722 ft). It was designed to be the centerpiece of a large-scale, mixed-use development known as Downtown Dubai. Construction took over five years, and the skyscraper was officially opened in January 2010.Photograph: Donald Y Tong
Archive – More featured pictures...

Occupation

Occupation could be an interesting section to ad in this article, particularly because it is not clear whether there are or not tenants in the majority of its floors.

Indeed this would be a good section for all skyscrapers, lets keep in mind that The Shard in London for instance is almost empty since completion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.11.51 (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2014‎

There could be some merit in this idea if reliable sources could be found. Unfortunately, some building management companies might consider this commercially sensitive information; sources could be hard to come by. Astronaut (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Observation deck

Please note that since the recent opening of the higher observation deck at 555m in November 2014, Burj Khalifa now holds this record again. Links and references can be found on the highest observation deck page on wikipedia itself. Whoever has the ability to update - please do.

 Done Please note that you should sign your posts by typing four tildes as indicated at the top of this page. I have updated the article and found some reasonable references (the other article doesn't point to anything useful, so I will go fix that next). Hopefully I have gotten the details correct. The highest observation deck doesn't seem to have ever appeared in the "Records" table at the bottom of the article, so I left that alone for now.Don Lammers (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

See also

I don't see the point of adding every tall building to the "See also" section. That's what the lists are for. If we continue down this path, the section will be just like the lists, except harder to keep current. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps local buildings and the one that it took the record from.--88.104.132.120 (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I also agree--88.104.133.87 (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree too--88.104.138.119 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Editing issue with contractor list

I don't know enough HTML to fix it myself. Looks like things that should be on the left and bold, aren't?

http://imgur.com/OSUzLq5

http://imgur.com/f1ZNx3B

195.171.185.49 (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone has added a bunch of entries to the infobox that aren't in the template. My opinion is that if there isn't a field for it in the infobox, it doesn't belong in the infobox. I suggest we remove these entries, or at least move them out of the infobox. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree--88.111.129.157 (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Their is protection on.--88.104.132.1 (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Name change

No information in the article about the backstory to the name change from Burj Dubai to Burj Khalifa? I came here looking for that. --LodeRunner (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It's mentioned on the time line, and I added it to the "Conception" section, but you're right that we could use a sentence or two on the reasons for the change. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Opus

 Question: Should we mention the Kraken Opus?--88.104.132.1 (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Labor controversy section - tag for unreliable source

User:Kendall-K1,can you provide some detail as to why you are tagging the source as unreliable in this edit? You've stated "sourced to an opinion piece" and entered WP:NEWSORG as the reason within the tag. But WP:NEWSORG states "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content." I would consider the source WP:Reliable. The source may be considered WP:Biased, but even then WP:Biased says "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." I consider that the reference supports at least part of the sentence. The article states "the current generation of UAE locals prefer government jobs" and the source states "A recent survey in 10 universities ... said 86 per cent of male Emirati students, and 66 per cent of females, hope to work in the government sector after graduation." In summary, I think there is more issue with the statement in the article than with the source given. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps consider rewording the statement. You could also find another source to add to this part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.178.163.8 (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. So for example you could say "Ayesha Almazroui of The National believes that many young Emiratis see a degree as only a piece of paper that can get them a job or a promotion." There are two problems with saying "the current generation of UAE locals ... consider private sector jobs to be below them." One is that you would need to attribute this to the person holding that opinion: "Ayesha Almazroui of The National believes the current generation of UAE locals ... consider private sector jobs to be below them." The second problem is that the source doesn't actually say that, as far as I can tell. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so why don't you go ahead and fix the wording as mentioned earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.178.163.8 (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone has added a second source (Gulf News Education) that is not an opinion piece. That's good. But I don't see where it supports the statement "locals ... consider private sector jobs to be below them." The source gives two reasons locals prefer government jobs; "lack of awareness ... about the importance of employment" and job security. It also mentions "cultural barriers" but doesn't say what those are. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"Spiderman" Alan Robert

Why is Alan Robert's climb listed twice? It is detailed first in the "Reception" section under the bold heading "Climbing". Then it's listed a second time in the "In Popular Culture" section. Am I the only person who finds this redundant? I would delete the second instance myself, but the page is listed as 'semi-protected', so I would prefer a more experienced WP Editor do it to avoid controversy. Would someone care to address/handle this? Gil gosseyn (talk) 05:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the section about MEVA in construction.

The section about MEVA in construction was written like an ad and has been removed. If anyone thinks the information in it was valuable, it can be put back in in a more encyclopedic format. Boomboompsh (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Improve the lead section

Anyone, please improve the lead section. Ayub407 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done (please ce if required) sstflyer 04:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It's well written. Ayub407talk 08:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction on sales of apartments ?

First we have : "Floors through to 108 have 900 private residential apartments (which, according to the developer, sold out within eight hours of being on the market)". But later we have : "rents in the Burj Khalifa plummeted 40% some ten months after its opening. Out of 900 apartments in the tower, 825 were still empty at that time.[105][106] However, over the next two and a half years, overseas investors steadily began to purchase the available apartments and office space in Burj Khalifa.[107] By October 2012, Emaar reported that around 80% of the apartments were occupied". Surely both can't be true ? We need a definition of "empty" and "occupied". Is this different to "unsold" and "sold" ? Does this mean that initially speculators bought all the apartments but failed to rent them out ? Rcbutcher (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Several of the sources are 404 or behind paywalls, but I think it's entirely possible many of the units were sold to investors but not occupied by tenants. That's what happened to the offices: Offices stand empty in tallest tower, the Burj Khalifa Kendall-K1 (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Seems a discussion of the business rationale of the structure would be a useful addition to the article. Prestige symbol versus business reality. The article you quote points to the former, but that could be becuase of the GFC at the time.. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Tons of refrigeration

I know it seems ridiculous, as do many of the US units, but the Ton of refrigeration is an actual unit of power, equal to 3.517 kW. So 13000 "tons" is indeed equal to about 46 MW. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Would it make this more clear if we dropped the "tons" and just gave the cooling power in MW? Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Not really. For one thing, a certain amount of ice cooling actually means something to most readers. Amount of MW is hard to understand without any comparison. But what confuses me is that the article specifies a total energy spent in terms of ice, which should be in kWh, not the rate of output in MW.
Peter Isotalo 13:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
It's an amount of energy (the heat of fusion for some number of tons of ice) per unit time (one day), which is a rate of energy transfer, which is power, which can be measured in MW. Agreed this can be confusing. What if we simply take the whole thing out? Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Uhm, no. There's nothing wrong with the "tons of refrigeration"-bit. I don't think I've ever seen MW as a unit of energy transfer for entire days. That's exactly why kWh exists. It's that conversion (which isn't actually in the source) that is confusing.
Peter Isotalo 14:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa fatalities

My daughter Laura Vanessa Nunes fell to her death from the 148th of the Burj Khalifa, Dubai, on 16 November 2014. On 17 March 2015 I was shown the CCTV footage at the Bur Dubai Police Station in Dubai after an interview with the Director, Lieutenant Colonel Tareq Mohd. The footage showed Laura slipping effortlessly through a gap in between two glass panes on what was unmistakably the At The Top Sky Observation Deck on the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa. During my visit to Dubai I was staying in Room 909 at Abidos Hotel Apartments Dubailand. My daughter had been staying there at the time of her death in Room 309. I have her receipts. The police removed her Portuguese passport and two credit cards shortly after her death. She was not staying in an apartment on the 14th floor of the Jumeirah Lakes Towers. More Importantly I have the original coroner's report in Arabic and the official English translation stating that my daughter's little body was found on the balcony of the 3rd floor of the Burj Khalifa on 16 November 2014. I also have the email between the Portuguese authorities in Portugal, Abu Dhabi and South Africa stating that Laura had fallen from the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa. It is important that the truth be told and that the cover-up should be exposed. The documents are available to be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.6.117 (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Name

In the lede, "Khalifa" links to Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Is who this building is named after? Or is it the title Khalifa? 17:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Burj Khalifa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Burj Khalifa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Broadcasting and Radio transmission

Which radio stations and radio services transmit from Burj Khalifa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.228.15.152 (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burj Khalifa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Tom Cruise

Someone keeps changing one of the pop culture items to say that "Tom Cruise ... performed many of the stunts by himself" (adding the word "by"). This is not correct. It implies that Cruise was alone on the set at the time, unassisted by anyone else. That is not what happened. He "performed many of the stunts himself," meaning that's actually him on screen, not a stunt man, but there were other people off-screen helping him. Jackie Chan, for example, does all his own stunts himself, but not "by himself"; he has the Jackie Chan Stunt Team of about 20 people helping him. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Number of stories

The article itself is unclear about the number of stories in the building, which has led some editor to claim on List of buildings with 100 floors or more that it has 209. Personally I think the article should state the building has 163 stories as 163 is the highest you can go in an elevator.Amyzex (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Piles

The article states the building's 192 piles are each 50 meters long. 50 meters? That seems awfully insubstantial for such a large building. In many regions building piles extend right down to the underlying bedrock. But the article doesn't mention bedrock. Is it possible that the 27 acre concrete plaza, at the tower's base, is structurally part of the tower, and that those 192 piles are scattered strategically throughout the plaza. If this is the case, the article should say so -- clearly. If there is some other explanation, the article should say so. Geo Swan (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Burj Khalifa/Archive 9#Sea level -- bedrock previously discussed here...
Talk:Burj_Khalifa/Archive_8#Burj_Dubai_facts -- piles previously discussed here...

As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss complicated or controversial edits on the talk page, not in our edit summaries

In this edit @Kendall-K1: excised a paragraph that cited the Daily Mail, with the edit summary "Fatalities: Not a RS, and didn't happen at Burj Khalifa".

As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss complicated or controversial edits on the talk page, not in our edit summaries. The Daily Mail covers a lot of celebrity related news. I gather many people, including wikipedia contributors, think that coverage is tawdry, sensational, and unreliable. However, they do also cover straight news. I don't work on celebrity articles, so I couldn't say how reliable or unreliable those articles are. I haven't really found any reason for skepticism of their coverage of straight news.

After reading the edit summary I checked WP:RSN, to see if a consensus had ever been reached to bar using the Daily Mail. I saw several discussion. I didn't read every one, in detail. But it seemed to me that the consensus was to generally accept Daily Mail articles as RS, unless there was a particular reason for doubt.

If Kendall-K1 has a particular reason to doubt the credibility of this particular reference I would appreciate them explaining it here, in detail. Geo Swan (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD suggests revert then discuss. If the Daily Mail reported something that wasn't true, doesn't that suggest they are not a reliable source for this information? Or are you doubting the police report? If the police are correct, then I don't see what this incident has to do with Burj Khalifa. If the police are wrong, then yes this material belongs here, but it would be good to get some more information. If someone died and there is a police coverup, I would expect to find coverage in other sources. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I just now did a few searches and it does look like a coverup, and the Daily Mail isn't the only source that discusses this. I would support putting this material back in and expanding it if possible. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • IMO the WP:BRD essay contains some questionable advice.
Explaining controversial or complicated edits, solely in one's edit summaries is probably the most common cause of edit wars. The first person boldly makes a controversial edit, that they inadequately explain in a brief edit summary. They next person to come along, who disagrees with them, experiences a strong temptation to respond in kind, and leave their reply in their edit summary. Except, to do that they have to make an edit, and they chose to undo the first poorly explained edit. Result? Instant edit war.
In this particular case I curbed my temptation to revert you.
Lots of newspapers report stuff that isn't true, even the most prestigious, like the NYTimes. Don't forget WP:VER says we aim for verifiable, not truth. We are not looking for truth. It is not our job to present what is true. It is our job to present what is verifiable by RS.
When you followed the advice of the BRD essay, you overlooked, or didn't check, to see whether other papers, like The News (au) largely confirmed the Daily Mail version, and discounted the versions of local papers, as being influenced by political pressure from local leaders.
Even if, for the sake of argument, a reliable blue ribbon panel were to confirm the Gulf News version, I still think it was a mistake to excise the paragraph. If our readers read that Laura jumped from the Burj, but can't find any coverage of it in our article, they would be correct to be let down. Balanced coverage would say International papers reported that she jumped, and that her mother reported being shown the security camera video, and the gap in the observation deck windows that allowed her to squeeze through, but that local papers denied the report. Verifiability, not truth. You made up your own mind what happened. I made up my own mind what happened. Our readers are entitled to make up their own minds what happened -- not have you excise a perfectly good paragraph, because you want to make up their minds for them.
If you now think you were overly hasty to cut the paragraph, can we count on you to restore it? Geo Swan (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Please try to assume good faith. My edit did not seem controversial or complicated to me at the time. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I am Leona Sykes, Laura Vanessa Nunes mother. I saw the CCTV footage at the Bur Dubai Police Station on 17 March 2015. The night before, on the four month anniversary of my daughter's death, I visited the At the Top Observation Deck on the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa at the same time my daughter had been there, and was told by Vincent a Kenyan security officer after I had requested to see the CCTV footage of Laura on the deck, he said that I must request it from a security supervisor on the ground floor of the Burj Khalifa, which I did. I was told that it had been removed by the police and that I would have to go to the Bur Dubai police station to see. On the following day at the Bur Dubai Police Station and after an interview with the Director, Lieutenant Colonel Tareq Mohd, I was shown the footage. It was taken on the At The Top Sky Observation Deck on the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa, and I witnessed the last moments of my daughter's life, Laura slipping effortlessly through a gap between two panes of glass, and falling to her death. I have all the evidence and it is available to be viewed in a secure environment. Please look at Burj Khalifa Fatalities on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.6.117 (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Burj Khalifa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"corrected fact"

An IP user (Latest IP User:2001:8003:314C:3C00:6819:3BC1:CBF0:72DC) is constantly removing the word "allegedly" from the article without providing a source justifying the removal. Please stop or provide a source. --Marbe166 (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've had it, I'm filing a report. --Marbe166 (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2016

hi 122.177.0.187 (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC).

Electrical and communications infrastructure ?

Would be good to read how this is provided. Rcbutcher (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Burj Khalifa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Burj Khalifa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Burj Khalifa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox become impossible to fix!

Hi! I was reading Burj Khalifa and found some errors with Infobox! I tried to fix, but I failed. If anyone knows how to fix it, help me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soumya-8974 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Wastewater embarassment should definitely find mentioning, especially given there is a subtitle regarding it

https://inhabitat.com/the-incredible-story-of-how-the-burj-khalifas-poop-is-trucked-out-of-town/ Google yourself through the internet fo laugh and find out more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.24.236.177 (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Why sudden secrecy about this being a Binladin project?

Saudi Binladin Group, a huge construction company composed of Osama Binladen's family but who distanced itself from Osama years before the capture, has built the tower. They also hold the project for the future kilometer high tower in Jeddah. Since I remember reading this on a Burj Khalifa Wiki site and then speding a few hours reading about the Company and the Binladen's I am curious why it is that this reference is no longer to be found. Neither on the Wikis of the Burj Kahlifa in different languages, nor on the Wiki of the Group itself. Since this is still the worlds highest building it would be the obvious thing to show it off, but they don't. Did someone ask them to keep it low profile, because of the bad sounding name? The Group and family itself obvioulsy have an honorable reputation but not everybody knows about what more is behind the name than Osama. They have an office e.g. in London, with a nameplate readable when not knowingly passing by - might raise questions to those not knowing about it. They are in the process of renaming the company. Lots of web sources also no longer easily findable. Good hiding work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.24.236.177 (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Wanted to add that this might not find interest here because it sounds absolutely like a conpiracy, which it is not. I invite you to dig into this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Binladin_Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.231.255.170 (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Jacinda Ardern

I understand that an image of New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is currently being projected onto the building at night. Could somebody please take a photo of it? Schwede66 04:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that there is no Freedom of panorama in UAE.Jklamo (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
When you take a photo at night you get the shape of the building only. Would that not overcome the FOP issue? Schwede66 18:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2019

Hello, I'd like that "the" preceding Burj Khalifa be removed from it as the tower is christened "Burj Khalifa and not "the Burj Khalifa". Put differently, Burj Khalifa is a proper noun and so shouldn't be preceded by a determiner. Think of it this way: The Jackie Chan. If you have any doubts, you should see how it is referred to by its owners here. Success! YourCalyx (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. A change like this is potentially controversial, so please establish a consensus on the talk page first. Second, there are plenty of proper nouns that take a definite article, even if people's names don't, so that's not a good enough reason by itself. Third, if most reliable sources do use the definite article, then Wikipedia generally will also, even if its owners don't. A note could be added about the discrepancy in usage, but that would again have to be backed up by a source. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2019

I suggest the addition of '–' to the quote under 'Awards.'

FROM: "We are talking about a building here that has changed the landscape of what is possible in architecture a building that became internationally recognized as an icon long before it was even completed. 'Building of the Century' was thought a more appropriate title for it."

TO: "We are talking about a building here that has changed the landscape of what is possible in architecture – a building that became internationally recognized as an icon long before it was even completed. 'Building of the Century' was thought a more appropriate title for it."

Sample source for the quote having a hyphen: https://csengineermag.com/burj-khalifa-becomes-first-recipient-of-new-tall-building-global-icon-award/ Coreygirard (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Price of building

The price of building was only(compared to much lower towers build in America) 1.5 billion dollars (about 5888100000 PLN). [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.30.49.16 (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Burj-Khalifa-only-cost-1-5-billion-dollars-to-build-while-some-shorter-buildings-cost-more
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 21:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The text mentions that Hyder Consulting were the supervising engineers, but there is not a link to Wikipedia's Hyder_Consulting page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owengwynne (talk • contribs) 16:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The old Age newspaper link concerning the cost of CoxGomyl's automated component of the window cleaning system is dead. A search of the Age's site has not revealed it, so it has probably gone for good. I had a hunt around but I could not find another 2'nd hand or 3'rd hand source for this information. So if somebody wants to fix, please do. 121.219.0.21 (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Half a mile tall

I think the article should note that the building is 'just over half a mile' tall (actually 0.515 miles) as it's a significant characteristic and achievement of the building. It also adds a point of reference for readers beyond the metres/feet given. As an aside, I live in a country with very few tall buildings, let alone skyscrapers, so building heights have little for the average inhabitant to compare them to. (I did add such text but it was reverted by @Oknazevad with no explanation given.) ToaneeM (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I reverted it because your edit removed the actual height in meters, which is the primary unit. Miles are not used in the UAE, and most people in the world have no idea how long a mile actually is, because it's an archaic unit. So removing meters for a reference to miles is inappropriate. oknazevad (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Oknazevad, certainly understand and agree with you there if I had, would have been rubbish. But my change actually read "...a total height of 829.8 m (2,722 ft, just over half a mile) and...". Have a check of the history. However, I didn't know how to make text appear in the brackets without removing the metres-feet conversion expression and replacing it with hard text. Maybe that's where your confusion arose. If you know how to do that with the expression-thing then please do. ToaneeM (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Oknazevad, in view of my note above and of receiving no disagreement with its points, I'll reinstate my change as was.ToaneeM (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with ToaneeM. I cannot see why it should have removed the height in meters - it is explicitly stated. I'm actually not a fan of imperial units and would prefer a world (and a Wikipedia) without them, but in this particular case it seems to make sense. -- H005 (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Minor grammar error correction:

"The concept of profitability derived from building high density developments and malls around the landmark have proven successful." "The concept .... HAS proven ..." not "have proven". Doesn't Wiki use Grammarly or something similar? Doug1943 12:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sizes of the floors?

I would really like to know something about the sizes of the floors, especially the upper floors. In particular, for the last 300m of height in the structure, when do we see ridiculously small amounts of floorspace just to have another level? SystemBuilder (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC).

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Boondoogle?

Wikipedia is not a forum. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am pretty sure that many people deemed this building to be a boondoggle. (It's not because it's impressive or big that it really was worth (costs and benefits aren't always monetary) For its enormous cost and possibly its low utility. Especially since this country has a reputation of dripping in luxury and does not really bother about ecology. (At least they signed climate change agreements). — Preceding unsigned comment added by OjuzKiopo (talk • contribs) 08:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

https://www.technocrazed.com/the-top-10-most-useless-skyscrapers-buildings-of-the-world-photo-gallery

https://www.liligo.co.uk/travel-magazine/worlds-most-useless-skyscrapers-12845.html

(Honestly I wouldn't mind taking a peek from the tower...but for the reason that it's a boondoggle (even the world is not used in those two articles) and the way it was built i'm not really willing to).


For example. Most of them are one third half. (That's 50 empty floors for burj khalifa). (150 floors in total )

Talk pages are not a forum WP:FORUM for discussion about the subject of the article but a place to discuss improvements to the article. What are your suggestions for improvement and what reliable sources do you have to support the improvements WP:RS. Also please make sure you sign your post with four tildes 4 x ~ Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. It has a unique design for a skyscraper, really shiny and the tallest building in the world as of right now and has that title in the bag for at least another 5-10 years. It's a modern world wonder that shows off the financial success of the country, and thus, serves it's intended purpose. 2601:589:8000:6470:45F7:D6DB:CF7:9754 (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2021

Change the URL of the official website from burjdubai.com to https://www.burjkhalifa.ae/en/ Loqumotive (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done 15 (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burj_Khalifa/Archive_11&oldid=1257958211"