Talk:Jeddah Tower/Archive 1

Archive 1

Revert War

At the risk of a revert war, I had to revert this to Chillysnow's version; it has correct grammar and adds references. Maldek, your reverts cite nothing and eliminate useful, relevant information. If there is a citation that lists the projected height to be 5,250 feet, and no better data is available, than this is what we should cite. I see no reason to believe this is false. Furthermore, you reverted my grammatical and mechanical edits, which seems to be driven by pure pride. Sentences should not occupy entire paragraphs, and proper grammar requires the subjunctive as well as indicative mood be used. Furthermore, there is no need to retain awkward phrasing such as "the project's projected height." On a more minor note, the article should read like an encyclopedia article, not a magazine article. Brief quotations from sources are better replaced by synopses, and referring to important statements as "the article stated" ought to be avoided.

What was most confusing and most required clarification was the statement "If the building is ever built it would be 650 meters taller than the current tallest structure, the Burj Dubai." Not only does this misuse the conditional "would," it is incredibly ambiguous as to which height the Mile-High Tower will surpass by 650 meters: the current, incomplete height, or the projected completed height? My rephrasing might not be ideal, but it certainly resolves that ambiguity.

The other baffling element of the revert is from "780 meters" to "650 meters." I do not understand this. The problem is a simple one of subtraction. 1600 meters (the approximate projected height of the Mile High Tower) minus 818 meters (the approximate projected height of the Burj Dubai) is 782 meters, which when rounded to appropriate significant figures, is 780 meters. The 650 meter figure seems to come from absolutely nowhere, and I am skeptical as to whether or not you are even attempting to give accurate statistics.

In a note to Chillysnow, "If built, the tower will be" is correct, rather than "If built, the tower would be," since the clause is a future more vivid, not a future less vivid; that is, the action is expected to occur, whereas your phrasing implies it is expected not to occur. Also, aesthetically, "will" resolves an ambiguity in tense present in "would."

Overall, this revert war is ridiculous. Unless somebody can provide a good reason to revert my changes, and post them HERE, they should be kept or improved, not reverted. Eebster the Great (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mladek, you "read" my comment, but then didn't respond to it and went ahead and reverted anyways? What the hell? The projected height of the Burj Dubai is 818 meters, NOT 950 meters, and I have no clue where you got that figure. Your own source at the end of the statement provides this information. Furthermore, 5,250 feet is obviously approximately one mile, and claiming that it is not is a misuse of rounding. It is called the "Mile-High Tower" for a reason.

If you continue to revert the article without even posting a single word on the talk page, then this page should be protected. Eebster the Great (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Maldek 2’s Recent Edits

There are two points that I want to make clear and hopefully you will see that after reading my discussion.

1. For my first point I would like to point out that the Mile High Tower will be 1,600 Meters and that a mile is 1,609.344 meters. The term almost a mile is not a good term to use, because it is open to interpretation and everyone has a different interpretation of what almost a mile is. You could argue that the Empire State Building is almost a mile even though it is a mere 381 meters. For this reason I suggest leaving the height of 1600 meters on the page but taking out the almost a mile apart. Besides that it has already been announced that The Mile High Tower will be 500 meters shorter than the planned 1,600 meters height because building a building to that height has proven unfeasible. I hope you will be okay with just stating the height as there is no exact definition to “almost a mile.”

2. For my second point I would like to note that the Burj Dubai is expected to be anywhere from 800 to 1000 meters. The exact height of the Burj Dubai is being kept a secret so it is hard to state how much taller the Mile High Tower will be than the Burj Dubai. To keep this article as neutral as possible, I suggest just listing the height of the Mile High Tower and not mentioning its comparison with the Burj Dubai as the exact height of the Burj Dubai upon completion is unknown as subject to controversy. Just leave out the comparison now to avoid an edit war and controversy and when the Burj Dubai is finished then you can put the comparison back in the article once we have the exact height of the Burj Dubai.

Thank You for your time, effort, and cooperation.Maldek2 (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for finally showing up on the talk page and not just doing a huge revert. I think the current state of the page is acceptable, in the sense that there won't be much information available in the near future, so I don't expect the page to expand much for a few years. Still, I'm not sure I really agree with your points.

1. The page didn't say "almost;" it said "approximately," for what that's worth. Not allowing approximations for height is ridiculous, especially when the name of the tower is supposed to reflect its height. A 1600 meter track isn't exactly 1600 meters, either; it's just accurate to within a milimeter or two. A +/- .6% error (that is, a 99.4% accurate value) is an extremely good approximation, and disallowing it seems ridiculous.

2. I think it's fair to use the value released by companies in association with the Burj Dubai, as well as the value that is currently on Wikipedia (and, it seems, everywhere else on the web). Clearly the exact height is subject to change by a few meters, but I assure you the Burj Dubai will not suddenly go through enormous, design-altering plans that require tearing down the building and rebuilding it to make it 200 meters taller. Eebster the Great (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Any updates?

According to this article, the plans for this tower were supposed to be made public in October 2008. It is now nearly the end of November. Were these plans ever unveiled, and if so, can someone update the article with more information as to the planned height, shape, etc.? Or if they haven't been unveiled, update the article to indicate so? John Darrow (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Due to worldwide financial situation, project appears to be shelved

The latest news for this project appears to indicate that it has been shelved (Feb 2009). I'll research further to verify, then it can be determined the appropriate way to deal with this page. (AFD process etc)

NOTE: Whether all canceled proposals are automatically subject to deletion, I'll investigate also. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"on hold"

Developer appears to be using the words "on hold," but searching for better sources. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mile High Tower Article has no sources!

There are absolutely no sources that state: 1) How tall this building will be 2) The name of this building 3) How many floors this building has 4) If it is a proposed building or just a vision 5) Where this building will be built 6) Who is building this building 7) When construction will start on this building 8) If this building will be taller than any other building when completed None of these things have sources, but there is information for all of these things. I suggest that if the information is not sourced it should not be put in. How do I know this building will start construction in 2010? Where does it say that? How do I know it will be the tallest building when finished. The Dubai City Tower will be 2400 Meters. Is this building taller than 2400 Meters? How do I know there are 330 floors? Where is this information coming from? How do I know what company is building this building? There isn’t even a link to a company. Heck, there isn’t even an Emporis page on the building confirming that it isn’t made up. There are absolutely no sources in this article so nothing can be verified. Please add sources to these claims. Ceres 987Ceres987 (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, all of this infantile chest-thumping is bizarre, as if there is some suspicion that the whole project is someone's deluded fantasy. Here are the sources I managed to find in five minutes using Google:

• http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23363844-25658,00.html
• http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/03/13/46879.html
• http://www.nce.co.uk/news/2009/02/saudi_milehigh_tower_latest_skyscraper_to_stall.html
• http://www.arabianbusiness.com/547358-kingdom-holding-says-tower-not-on-hold
• http://zawya.com/projects/project.cfm?pid=260208080028&cc

Feel free to incorporate them into the article as necessary. I'd do it, but I'm tired from all the painstaking research; and besides, I'm not the one blanking out entire pages to try and make an unsupportable argument from ommission. Trowbridge (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Using the above sources, I have brough back a lot of the material that Ceres987 was keen to delete, while keeping mention of the on-hold back-on-again situation. Astronaut (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Mile High Tower Concerns

1. I have looked at all of the sources in this article and in all of the sources the tower is claimed to be 1600 Meters, not 1609 Meters. If we can find a source that says 1609 Meters than we can change the height to 1609 Meters.
2. The Mile High Tower cannot be said to be the tallest building in the world because we do not know if a larger building will be built before the Mile High Tower is built.
3. We cannot say that the Mile High Tower will surpass Dubai because for one you cannot compare proposed buildings to other buildings (according to Timsdad) and we cannot predict whether or not Dubai will build a building larger than the Mile High Tower before the tower is built. Dubai has proposed a 2,400 Meter building called Dubai City Tower. Who is to say that Dubai City Tower isn’t built before Mile High Tower. If this is the case then Jeddah would not beat Dubai in the skyscraper race.

These are my concerns, please feel free to comment.Ceres987 (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Refactored your list to use the list markup - it makes it easier to read

1. It's been discussed before, but the building has the (temporary?) name Mile-High Tower which would suggest a height of 5280 ft or spproximately 1609 m. I suspect either KHC call it Mile-High because it is a catchy name, or the non-US press rounded the height to the nearest 100 m. Whatever... you are right and the references I've seen say 1600 m and on reflection it is probably better to stick to what the sources say than guess that they rounded. But if the builkding is finally constructed 500 m shorter, I think HC will have a hard time calling it "Mile-High" any more :-)
2. Absolutely right. However, the people who decide to build such tall buildings usually do it in the hope of capturing the title of world's tallest.
3. Again you are right - that particular statement was part of the text I pulled from a previous version and it sounded OK at the time, but now I'm not so sure.

One thing though: I do think you are taking this "according to Timsdad" rule way too literally. Of course we can make some comparisons to reflect the hopes of the owners and architects, but to say something like "Tower A will be 123 m taller than Tower B" when Tower A is still just a proposal, is clearly ridiculous.

Astronaut (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Mile High Tower Source SkyscraperPage.com- Vision? Finished in 2010?

Hi, I had some concerns about the source SkyscraperPage.com. Here is the URL (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=82759). I understand that floor count 330 comes from this source. I also noticed that this source says that the Mile High Tower is a Vision and that it will be completed in 2010. I am not sure what to make of this. I assume that the tower has not started yet, so I do not understand how a building can reach 1,600 Meters in less than one year. Do you think this information is okay to incorporate in the article? Is it okay to put that it is a vision and it will be completed in 2010? If not, then is it okay to put that there will be 330 floors since this is the only source that claims 330 floors? Please comment.Ceres987 (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I originally left that info out - deliberately so, but this edit added the floor count back in. I also think this info is dubious at best; even so I did tidy the reference anyway. If consensus says that info is unreliable, it can easily be deleted again. Astronaut (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably means that the plans for the building will be completed in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.169.140 (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt this will happen

Maybe, in my lifetime sometime; but not in the next 20 years. The most serious proposal seems to be the Al Burj Nakheel Tower; proposed to be 1 kilometer high. For anything higher won't we re-run into the problem of load bearing walls again? Like we did with stone? Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Why yes, I dare say that's a realistic scenario, looking at the core and supercolumns of Shanghai Tower gives evidence that that is precisely the case with anything over 2000 feet. Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And now it's happening. And here I am, uh, sitting in the car, and, uh, talking to myself. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Burj Al-Meel

There is nothing in Burj Al-Meel that is not already said in this article in greater detail. Assuming these are actually the same project - and I have no reason to suspect that they are not - then Burj Al-Meel could simply be redirected here. Astronaut (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC) "

they are the same project. burj al-meel equal the Mile Tower in Arabia language.--Peadara (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and merge it.  A M M A R  21:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

News

• http://www.constructionweekonline.com/article-10206-besix-we-expect-binladin-to-win-kingdom-tower/

The Belgian contractor in the running for the world’s tallest tower contract has said it expects its Saudi-based competitor to win the deal.

Dubai-based firm Besix in partnership with El Seif Engineering & Contracting, is up against the Saudi Binladin Group for the 1-km high ‘Kingdom Tower’ in Jeddah, and is hoping to hear back from the decision-makers soon.

The contractors, which are both renowned for their flagship projects, were actually meant to find out which firm had been awarded the contract in September, but as yet as still waiting.

Speaking about the firm’s geographical expansion plans, Philippe Dessoy, general manager of subsidiary firm Six Construct, told Construction Week: “For more than a year we have been looking at Saudi Arabia.

"We put a tender together for the Kingdom Tower, and we’re on the shortlist with Binladin, but I expect the job to go to Binladin.”

That said, the GM of the Burj Khalifa builder, and firm responsible for Abu Dhabi’s recently-completed Sheikh Zayed Bridge, did add that he hoped to win a contract in Saudi by the middle of next year.

“We hope to win a project in Saudi as soon as possible, but we don’t expect anything for another few months. We hope to have a project before summer next year.”

With more than 200 floors, Kingdom Tower will stand higher than the Burj Khalifa, which is currently the world's tallest man-made structure at 828m.

Last year, developer Emaar, also responsible for the Burj Khalifa, was selected by Kingdom Holdings Company (KHC) to supervise construction of the tower and surrounding city development, estimated to cost a massive US$40 billion to build.

In September, the two contractors competing for the project had to revise their prices due to changes to the design. Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

pick

wee need a pick of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.39.109 (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to get a "pick" (sic) of it when the design hasn't even been approved. Please be patient. I'm sure pictures will become available once the design is approved and the picks hit the ground. Astronaut (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Done! Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The large new image new editor sir wallace uploaded to commons and released rights to is a copyvio. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of floors

Editors, both random IP editors and seasoned editors alike, keep coming by and adding a figure for the number of floors without adding a source for these figures. Of the sources currently listed, only skyscraperpage.com lists any number of floors and that states Wikipedia as its source! So, please, only add a number of floors (or any other detail) if you have a reliable source you can cite. Astronaut (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

haha you're talking about me, aren't you. I got the 275 number from the skyscrapercity thread, which often has very good information by insider people who actually know what they're talking about, it's just buried in it's now over half a million members mostly with nothing more to say than "I hope they bild this" Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There's even this one guy who's well informed who I thought might be you, raime, or timsdad, but when I asked he said "I don't do wikipedia because I know that any incorrect information I fix on Burj Khalifa, some editor who knows nothing about it can just change it back" or something like that. It's funny how many times people have tried to get skyscrapercity on wikipedia, the main name is create protected but an attempt has not been made in a while. It grows very fast and is not slowing down yet, it regularly breaks it's own records and is just about to pass the half million member mark. It's neat to see all that on a skyscraper fan site, basically, despite the subject's typically narrow interest demographic. The majority of members now are by far not from the USA, of course, and some forums have even converted into different languages, though. Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about just you - others have also come by with figures from somewhere unknown - but your recent edit did prompt me to start this thread. It is unfortunate, but skyscrapercity is a forum which relies on user contributed content and therefore is not considered a reliable source for the purposes of building this encyclopedia. That said, I do find that forum an interesting read from time to time. There are obviously many people out there who are fascinated by tall buildings - half a million forum members is testament to that - but Wikipedia does rely on sources that have been previously published in reliable media such as newspapers, magazines, TV shows, books, etc, media which usually have a track record of independent fact checking. The trouble with simply adding a figure without stating where it came from is easily illustrated by these differences: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5 - 4 different figures in 5 edits this year alone and who knows which is correct?

As for whether there should be a Skyscrapercity article, maybe there should. All have been speedily deleted, the last in 2008, either as "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion." or "R1. Redirect to a page which does not exist"; but don't let that put you off. If you can show the forum is notable enough for an article, feel free to create it or request it at WP:AFC. Astronaut (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This new source Singularity Hub is the first one I've seen to give a floor count, it says 160 occupiable floors, only three above the large balcony. It looks like there will be a lot more than that above the balcony in the renders. Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of Scale

Just as an interesting side note, I've just been watching a BBC documentary on nature, where David Attenborough notes that the largest termite mounds are in Australia, with their own natural air conditioning. To be built on the same scale in human size (if termites were as large as humans) the structure would be a mile high. So we should know who we are competing with: termites.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent updates

It seems today this article was moved from Mile-High Tower to the current name. However, I can find no evidence that these are actually the same project apart from the connection to Kingdom Holdings. Just about every aspectof this project is now different so is it really the same project? None of the references added mention the so called previous name or any link to the other project. I therefore propose reverting todays edits and instead creating a new article under the current name. Please feel free to come forward with evidence that this is actually the same project. Astronaut (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

PDF

Makes it sound like the circle shaped thing is not the observation deck, it's a sky terrace for the penthouse, at level 157, and it's 30 feet accross. Elevators at 10 meters per second. Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

GA nomination

Although very short the density of quality is sufficient to meet high standards. It just needs a little more development, but it has to stay as tidy as it is now. No bare url references and edit wars over stupid stuff where I'm probably right. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• The ratings are nearly perfect, I assume it's mostly users rating it because random people would be more likely to give compulsive low ratings. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Impact, construction, and location sections. Location issues should be added Forbes blog, education, infrastructure, etc.
• This article should be good enough by the time something big happens so that it can be worth having on the in the news thing. To do that it needs a broader scope than just a detailed description of a "really really tall building," such as its (in)direct economic and social impacts.

section work

Location/impact section. Kingdom Tower will be located North of Jeddah on a narrow harbor of the Red Sea. It will have a manmade waterway built around it as well. Just as the Kingdom Tower will compliment the Kingdom City development that will be built around it, there are many infrastructure and revitalization projects underway and planned throughout Saudi Arabia that will will compliment the Kingdom City as well as develop Saudi Arabia, which has been likened to a Third World country with crumbling infrastructure and widespread disasters such as flooding.

_

What's even better than the fact that I've gotten this article up to a featured quality level is the fact that I've done it all from a Droid smartphone in my free time without using any mobile optimization or accidentally citing a mobile url. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

And here we go with the edit war where I'm probably right. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Good article review for Kingdom Tower (Jeddah)

GA Review This review is transcluded from Talk:Kingdom Tower (Jeddah)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC) I will be reviewing this over the next couple of days. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Rate Attribute Review Comment 1. Well-written: 1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Splitting this into three sections Lead:Minor errors. It would read better if new was taken out before the word development. Overview: Timeline: Design: 1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Also splitting Lead:The lead either doesn't comply with guidelines or really doesn't exist. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the article as a whole. The current lead will need to be incorporated into the body of the article and then re-written to become a summary of the article. An easy way to figure out what needs to be incorporated is to read the article without the lead. Any information which is lost by not reading the lead must be incorporated into the article. In addition, the lead section should not be more than four paragraphs and does not need to contain references if the information is referenced later on in the article. Early problem was resolved. The last sentence of the lead is not written anywhere else in the article and it seems out of place. Layout: Words to watch: 2. Verifiable with no original research: 2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. 2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). 2c. it contains no original research. 3. Broad in its coverage: 3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. 3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: 6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images are tagged [1], [2], [3]. The two renderings of the tower itself trouble me as I am not 100% positive if that is allowed under the criteria of minimal usage especially since concerns were offered by Future Perfect at Sunrise. I also don't think the article currently gives enough information about the importance and originality of the sky terrace for it to meet the criteria of contextual significance. 6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Writing quality of the captions is poor and could offer more detailed descriptions. Why does one caption say render while the other says rendering? Descriptions are much better. Why is the second tower image a "render" while the first one is a "rendering", are they both computer renderings? The caption for the sky terrace doesn't sound right when I read it out loud. The content is good but it could be edited for readability. 7. Overall assessment. Initial thoughts I haven't done a thorough review of the article yet, nor have I read through the entire thing but here is a list of some problems I see right away. I am noticing some writing quality and spelling issues. Compliment means "Politely congratulate or praise (someone) for something", the word you are looking for is Complement "Add to (something) in a way that enhances or improves it; make perfect". One dab link [4] Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)  Done Good job on the quick fixes, I'll try to get more reviewing done later tonight or tomorrow. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Note Throughout the review, I may be making statements of what I believe can be done to the article to improve the article even if it is not necessarily required for the Good Article Nomination to be passed. I will make a clear distinction when I have finished my review of exactly what is required. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC) For a reference on how good a building article must be to pass take a look at this article which managed to pass even though it's (now) well outdated and has less than 10 references. If that's a good article then this should be featured, but it's not because that shouldn't be a good article, it should be delisted for now as the project was temporarily cancelled. Also, remember, this type of article cannot be compared to an article on say a historical British colony in regard to what it needs to pass, and you should expect it to have some jargon. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC) I try to refrain from comparing good article candidates to other good articles. I also try to maintain an extremely close relationship between my review and the policies set at WP:GA?. I also tend to rely on Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not as well. I do not tend to create my own good article criteria. I am almost sure that this article will be passed after some modifications. For now, try to do a quick copy edit. You could even request a review or a copy edit from WP:GOCE. Sorry I didn't get much of a review in today; although, you got lucky. Most good article reviews take much longer to begin. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Putting my review on hold for now The article is still in the process of major revisions to the point at which I cannot review any of the sections. Things change so quickly that this article will not be in the same state when it is finished as it is when I am reviewing. I am not going to do any more reviewing until the article is in a slightly more stable state. Please notify me on my talk page when you have finished your contributions to the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC) August 2 was a huge breakthrough for the project, and I have been scrambling for all the news I can get, extracting every possible fact out of them I can. New news is sharply petering out after a week since the announcement and the drastic changes will stop as well. I admit I submitted the nomination a bit too hastily; I was expecting the review commencement to take longer. The only big thing that can happen now is for some sort of construction to start, which would lead to the final section, Construction, which would be pretty straightforward, anyway. Compare the article to where it was a week ago. That sort of exponential growth is unsustainable and has run out of fuel. Today is the ninth, so it was just a week ago this morning that real news was announced, which further legitimized old news and led to huge opportunities in the article to go in great depth. And it's not like the changes are conflicting, it's just more stuff being added with equivalent quality to the rest. Yes, it will change (not nearly as rapidly as it has been), no, the quality will not fall off (as long as I'm the one editing it). Please consider reviewing it as it stands now as I literally have exausted about every source there is (and that wasn't true until a few minutes ago). Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I understand that things aren't conflicting, I was just wary of a review while there were still massive changes being made to the article. If you do not have any more plans for major changes I will begin my review again. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you. Also, one remarkable fact that I forgot to point out is that despite that the article has gotten tens of thousands of views over the past seven days, it has received zero vandalism, this is absolutely unheard of in a highly publicized topic; it's reach even extended to late night television, at midnight last night, tv on mute and me not really paying attention, it was shown and mentioned in the session between shows on AdultSwim. Furthermore, it has not even been touched by the common skyscraper-editors, raime, timsdad, astronaut, etc. which is surprising as they generally like uniformity in having things a certain way that this article is not, as it has risen above just being about a "building." It would even further add to people's confidence seeing it's a good article. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC) The only reason it's taken me this long to build it up to par is because I can only work so fast from my phone. Look how many edits I've had to do because it crashes easily if you toggle between pages. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Ok, so there are some underlying reasons why I have been pushing to slow or halt my review. First, I am fairly sick in real life and find it hard to devote the energy into analyzing the article required for the review. Second, I have become slightly attached to the article, would like to see it promoted, and would like to help edit it. Because of this bias, I cannot, in good faith, continue to review the article. I have given a request to an excellent reviewer (User:H1nkles) to review the article. If he cannot do the good article review I will tag it for a second opinion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

video interview

A great source with tons of information. http://www.wttw.com/main.taf?p=42,8,80,32&pid=VlC48yYaG9ap2oa_hzO6lhAHJaha_Z8w

Key points

• 50 floors over burj
• sloping is better than stacking (burj) for wind vorticies (tornadoes)

Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• The templates are rounding too much

1,000 m (3,280.84 ft) 1,000 m (3,281 ft)

An example of double deck elevators

The article should be divided like this: /layout

references

• financing http://www.albawaba.com/main-headlines/alwaleed-bin-talal-companies-build-tallest-tower-world-387307
• education not skyscrapers (dawn again) http://www.dawn.com/2011/08/08/education-not-skyscrapers.html gives a good parallel, 1949 world jewry center
• highest hotel http://www.hoteliermiddleeast.com/12071-four-seasons-could-be-worlds-highest-hotel/ doesn't say anything, but the mention of Ob'hur Creek might be taken from here.
• good written interview http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/02/kingdom-tower-tallest-building_n_916207.html

Kingdom website http://www.kingdom.com.sa/en/

towers as an economic indicator

• http://theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/a-new-tallest-building-another-sign-of-economic-doom/243284/ leads to:
• ? http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010308575_webfall19m.html
• http://marketurbanism.com/2008/08/26/skyscrapers-as-economic-indicators/

The moneyweek reference has no link/url, yet

http://www.money_week.com/news-and-charts/economics/a-recession-indicator-thats-hard-to-miss/

Because it's waiting on a mediawiki whitelist approval.

• MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• User talk:Beetstra

fhf

“Of course, until it’s built, the Burj Khalifa’s record remains intact. That hasn’t, however, stopped architects and developers from producing concept drawings of mega-monolithic spires and gleaming shards of steel and glass to drum up publicity. It’s cheating, of course, but it does get you bragging rights. Until a project breaks ground and construction starts, nothing has been achieved other than a nice set of drawings and a lot of internet forum comments. It’s a clever ploy, but it robs genuine projects of their rightful claims with little more effort than a few hours in front of a computer.”

— Stephen White, columnist for ConstructionWeekOnline

.

"...this tower symbolizes the Kingdom as an important global business and cultural leader, and demonstrates the strength and creative vision of its people. It represents new growth and high-performance technology fused into one powerful iconic form.”

k

"an elegant, cost-efficient and highly constructible design."

—Adrian Smith, architect of Kingdom Tower

m

— "Building this tower in Jeddah sends a financial and economic message that should not be ignored. It has a political depth to it to tell the world that we Saudis invest in our country."

Al-Waleed bin Talal, Prince of Saudi Arabia and visionary behind Kingdom Tower and City

f

• I realize that this talk page is very messy and non-conforming; bear with me, it is my workspace and not many see it anyway, probably because they are so taken by the kick-ass article that looking at it is the last thing they do before becoming motivated to get off the computer turn their life around because it's that awesome. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Bold text

Link you may be interested

I thought you might be interested in this http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/kingdom-tower-set-world-record-tallest-mega-skyscraper-170649407.html Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That link is actually a mirror of today's gizmodo or other. Glad to see you like the article. I've really devoted a lot to it in this past week, I didn't want to see it go the direction of the Burj Khalifa article or others. This article has over 70 good references and is longer than some featured articles html wise because it's denser. Before you go making too many changes, if you're planning on it, know that some things may be the way they are for a reason. For example, the orders of currency do not all match. This is because I put what was actually written in the source first, then use a translator to get the other. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, along that line, there is a parameter of {{convert}} so the input value can be placed second. I also think that WP:$ states that after the first instance of US$, all subsequent uses should just be inputted with $20 billion (without the US). Can you take a look at the guide and see if you think that is the route we should take for the article? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I can do stuff later, I'm tired and my touch screen is acting up probably from all the usage. About being a good article, there are sooooo many people who would pass it just like that with where it is now, and I'm not just talking about as a building article compared to others (like One Bayfront Plaza, AT&T corp center, or willis tower which is always semi protected), but even against any type of GA. It's too easy to just find an editor who'll pass it. To get this to pass as a FA, now that would be a real accomplishment for the future. I don't think any " building article" on a building that's notable only for height and not history is featured. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Move to just Kingdom Tower

An administrator has to do it since that page is already existing. Daniel Christensen (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Consider nominating this for DYK

You should consider nominating this for Did you know. You have done a 5x expansion. I'm not sure if it will be invalidated because of the amount of time it took for the expansion though. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

5x, more like 10x if you weight the quality changes. Do I have to submit it? It should be a good article first. The reason I wanted GA done quickly is because the most amount of people are seeing it right now. It is soooooo qualified as a good article it's not funny. I could get a number of editors to pass it on the spot. That other editor is becoming inactive. There is one reference with no link because the domain is blacklisted (even though it's a good article) that I have requested for approval at the white list page. Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

GA nom should not be on a week long hold

Because it only took a week to completely transform the article. I agree that with the normal snail pace of activity here that would be appropriate, but many of the issues have already been solved or proven to not be an issue, such as the binladin thing and the impact section, which is doing exactly what it's meant for. Why did I have to get the hardest reviewer in all of London? Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

H1nkles is probably the best reviewer in all of London. I have worked with him extensively on articles in the past. A week long hold doesn't mean that the article must wait a week, it means that the article can take no longer than a week to be improved. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it's just that, and I want it to happen at some point, but this simply isn't an FA Review, as administrators and those close to it typically treat them as, as a way to make up for how loose they are treated by casual editors. And some things were misinterpreted, such as the notability of the Binladin thing (it is totally not worth expanding on. Even the liberal media couldn't produce a whole article devoted to the coincedence, which is all it is. Doing all the editing I did so rapidly was like a one time thing, and as long as I did it something might as well come of it, I didn't spend a week on the article just so it could be pooped on by James Bottomtooth. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC) PS I meant "in all of London" as a saying, but at wikipedia it's true about 2/3 the time. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Vesey is correct, the week-long hold is only meant to say you have a week to get the work done, not that I won't review it until the week is up. By the way, I live in California, never been to London. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

To restate my question...

It seems my question of a few days ago has been ignored in the unseemly rush to get this article to GA standard.

So... Apart from the involvement of KHC, where is the evidence in a reliable source that this "Kingdom tower" project is the same project as the "mile-high tower". Frankly, I am completely baffled why the Mile-High Tower page was suddenly moved and completely rewritten. Surely a new page should have been created instead. Astronaut (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you nuts? How bout all the sources that say "previously planned to be a mile high?" I can't believe this is happening. The real reason for it is that the mile high thing was never serious, that's why "it's not the same companies," because there were no companies before, Adrian Smith denieded that he design that penis shaped tower with the little support buffets or whatever they were called. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

lol you need to wake up and read the sources. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Good article review for Kingdom Tower

GA Review This review is transcluded from Talk:Kingdom Tower (Jeddah)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC) I will be reviewing this over the next couple of days. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Rate Attribute Review Comment 1. Well-written: 1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Splitting this into three sections Lead:Minor errors. It would read better if new was taken out before the word development. Overview: Timeline: Design: 1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Also splitting Lead:The lead either doesn't comply with guidelines or really doesn't exist. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the article as a whole. The current lead will need to be incorporated into the body of the article and then re-written to become a summary of the article. An easy way to figure out what needs to be incorporated is to read the article without the lead. Any information which is lost by not reading the lead must be incorporated into the article. In addition, the lead section should not be more than four paragraphs and does not need to contain references if the information is referenced later on in the article. Early problem was resolved. The last sentence of the lead is not written anywhere else in the article and it seems out of place. Layout: Words to watch: 2. Verifiable with no original research: 2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. 2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). 2c. it contains no original research. 3. Broad in its coverage: 3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. 3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: 6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images are tagged [5], [6], [7]. The two renderings of the tower itself trouble me as I am not 100% positive if that is allowed under the criteria of minimal usage especially since concerns were offered by Future Perfect at Sunrise. I also don't think the article currently gives enough information about the importance and originality of the sky terrace for it to meet the criteria of contextual significance. 6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Writing quality of the captions is poor and could offer more detailed descriptions. Why does one caption say render while the other says rendering? Descriptions are much better. Why is the second tower image a "render" while the first one is a "rendering", are they both computer renderings? The caption for the sky terrace doesn't sound right when I read it out loud. The content is good but it could be edited for readability. 7. Overall assessment. Initial thoughts I haven't done a thorough review of the article yet, nor have I read through the entire thing but here is a list of some problems I see right away. I am noticing some writing quality and spelling issues. Compliment means "Politely congratulate or praise (someone) for something", the word you are looking for is Complement "Add to (something) in a way that enhances or improves it; make perfect". One dab link [8] Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)  Done Good job on the quick fixes, I'll try to get more reviewing done later tonight or tomorrow. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Note Throughout the review, I may be making statements of what I believe can be done to the article to improve the article even if it is not necessarily required for the Good Article Nomination to be passed. I will make a clear distinction when I have finished my review of exactly what is required. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC) For a reference on how good a building article must be to pass take a look at this article which managed to pass even though it's (now) well outdated and has less than 10 references. If that's a good article then this should be featured, but it's not because that shouldn't be a good article, it should be delisted for now as the project was temporarily cancelled. Also, remember, this type of article cannot be compared to an article on say a historical British colony in regard to what it needs to pass, and you should expect it to have some jargon. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC) I try to refrain from comparing good article candidates to other good articles. I also try to maintain an extremely close relationship between my review and the policies set at WP:GA?. I also tend to rely on Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not as well. I do not tend to create my own good article criteria. I am almost sure that this article will be passed after some modifications. For now, try to do a quick copy edit. You could even request a review or a copy edit from WP:GOCE. Sorry I didn't get much of a review in today; although, you got lucky. Most good article reviews take much longer to begin. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Putting my review on hold for now The article is still in the process of major revisions to the point at which I cannot review any of the sections. Things change so quickly that this article will not be in the same state when it is finished as it is when I am reviewing. I am not going to do any more reviewing until the article is in a slightly more stable state. Please notify me on my talk page when you have finished your contributions to the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC) August 2 was a huge breakthrough for the project, and I have been scrambling for all the news I can get, extracting every possible fact out of them I can. New news is sharply petering out after a week since the announcement and the drastic changes will stop as well. I admit I submitted the nomination a bit too hastily; I was expecting the review commencement to take longer. The only big thing that can happen now is for some sort of construction to start, which would lead to the final section, Construction, which would be pretty straightforward, anyway. Compare the article to where it was a week ago. That sort of exponential growth is unsustainable and has run out of fuel. Today is the ninth, so it was just a week ago this morning that real news was announced, which further legitimized old news and led to huge opportunities in the article to go in great depth. And it's not like the changes are conflicting, it's just more stuff being added with equivalent quality to the rest. Yes, it will change (not nearly as rapidly as it has been), no, the quality will not fall off (as long as I'm the one editing it). Please consider reviewing it as it stands now as I literally have exausted about every source there is (and that wasn't true until a few minutes ago). Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I understand that things aren't conflicting, I was just wary of a review while there were still massive changes being made to the article. If you do not have any more plans for major changes I will begin my review again. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you. Also, one remarkable fact that I forgot to point out is that despite that the article has gotten tens of thousands of views over the past seven days, it has received zero vandalism, this is absolutely unheard of in a highly publicized topic; it's reach even extended to late night television, at midnight last night, tv on mute and me not really paying attention, it was shown and mentioned in the session between shows on AdultSwim. Furthermore, it has not even been touched by the common skyscraper-editors, raime, timsdad, astronaut, etc. which is surprising as they generally like uniformity in having things a certain way that this article is not, as it has risen above just being about a "building." It would even further add to people's confidence seeing it's a good article. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC) The only reason it's taken me this long to build it up to par is because I can only work so fast from my phone. Look how many edits I've had to do because it crashes easily if you toggle between pages. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Ok, so there are some underlying reasons why I have been pushing to slow or halt my review. First, I am fairly sick in real life and find it hard to devote the energy into analyzing the article required for the review. Second, I have become slightly attached to the article, would like to see it promoted, and would like to help edit it. Because of this bias, I cannot, in good faith, continue to review the article. I have given a request to an excellent reviewer (User:H1nkles) to review the article. If he cannot do the good article review I will tag it for a second opinion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Next stop, FA

Some things as a guideline, right now a picture of the site, especially with construction trailers and equipment (these exist, but not freely licensed and the basement dwellers at SSC hate wikipedia) would be really helpful.

It's still getting a lot of news, but solid construction news is what's needed next to kick it's notability into high gear. If it really does go ahead with construction, importance on the three above listed wikiprojects will all jump one up, making it Top on skyscrapers, High on architecture, and Mid on Saudi Arabia. Because something tangible is more important than a proposal. What's cool and promising about the news is that the wow factor news and mirror articles that all said the same thing are dying off and now it's becoming more construction related, with several to the point ConstructionWeek articles in the last couple days. No news on August 12.

The quality is great, one thing to point out is that even though it may not look long, it is so dense with references and html that it's over 50 kB, believe it or not. Other than minor prose and perhaps more content, what's really lacking FA quality about it? Well one thing that should be done is Kingdom City given an article, having a red link is an immediate turn off to the article. Also there are different numbers given to the square milage of KC. The one I have here is the larger one, other reports say 2 square miles. Oh well it's all speculative journalism. Oh yeah, how about a DYK now? Firstly, DYK is basically just a not-quite-good-enough-for-the-in-the-news-section status as I understand it. It's too late for news anyway since that was August 2, but it might get another publicity run, perhaps if construction officially commences. DYK submitted: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_August_2; Template talk:Did you know/Kingdom Tower

Wow, on my phone or on a "regular" screen computer it looks fine, but at full HD widescreen it's a stub again and the images bump, but it looks more professional in a way. The lines are harder to read and follow because they're unnaturally long, much longer than a book, I don't think widescreen is good in that aspect, that or wikipedia needs to narrow the content area. There should be enough material to double the word content within a month, I would say, which will help a lot. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Lastly, notice how I'm still adding a lot to this article even though it became a GA after all my kicking and screaming. I may be a drama queen, but in the end, who brought home the bacon on this article? This may not continue as it were unusual circumstances in real life that led to all this editing. I do believe I now have arthritis in my wrists and am near sighted from my phone. Oh well.

Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Alt5 DYK:

• ... that Kingdom Tower is being built by Osama bin Ladin's family's business and will become the world's tallest building?
• When will it be on the front page and for how long? Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• This article that somehow made it to be today's featured article, 200 (Stargate SG-1), relates to this article in that it demonstrates that it is certainly not out of the question for this to attain FA status. Daniel Christensen (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

+ Financing information + *http://www.albawaba.com/main-headlines/alwaleed-bin-talal-companies-build-tallest-tower-world-387307 - used it

DYK August 14

Coincidentally exactly after I had just finished working on the article, the DYK went live. We'll see how many views and how much vandalism it gets; Sunday is typically the slowest day here, I think. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Article being used as a source for the papers; Chicagomag

This article: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/August-2011/The-Kingdom-Tower-Skyscraper-for-the-Next-Financial-Collapse/

Definitely did it's homework using wikipedia. They used what is essentially my 2017 finish date, which is the logical year even though 2016 is what gets published, and they mentioned the cheap labor which was an obscure find. Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

More on exactly what JEC and KHC are; tower site area

There is a lot of numbers thrown about, when you here a ground area it could belong to any one of these cascading by size areas: tower, tower site, water front district, new Kingdom City area (2 sq miles), old Kingdom City area (8.9 sq miles).

Recent article, http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/08/planned-green-skyscraper-really-really-tall/, states, Talal is a chairman of KHC, which is a partner of JEC, which is made up of it's partners; KHC and businessmen Samaual Bakhsh and Abdulrahman Hassan Sharbatly and Saudi Binladin Group (SBG).

This is looking like it could merit a financing subsection under Overview. I only know SBG's percent share, I think I have heard at least one of the other's somewhere but really should have them all before I take a stab at making a section attempting to describe the financing. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

financing

Jeddah Economic Company (JEC) was formed in 2009 as a financial entity for Kingdom Tower and City. It is made up of partners Kingdom Holding Company (KHC), businessmen Samaual Bakhsh and Abdulrahman Hassan Sharbatly, and the tower's own contractor, Saudi Binladin Group (SBG).

That's about all so far. Actually it fits at the end of overview. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

great new reference

http://www.constructionweekonline.com/article-13530-city-of-the-hyper-tall/

• Make a quote box for this:

“Kingdom Tower’s height is remarkable, obviously, but the building’s iconic status will not depend solely on that aspect. Its form is brilliantly sculpted, making it quite simply the most beautiful building in the world of any height.”

— Talal Al Maiman, board member, Jeddah Economic Company

Tall Order constructionweek

“Is there such as thing as too high? I think mankind is always going to be challenged by finding the next frontier. I think there’s also a market -people will always want to be in the world’s tallest tower.”

— Bart Leclercq, head of structures for WSP Middle East

• Quote background color coding question: Template talk:Quote box#where can I find a list or key of wikipedia's background color codings?
• 2 kilometres (6,562 ft)
• 2 km (6,562 ft)

nymag reference

References

8/29 bloomberg 8/30 cwo refs, important stuff to be added/tweaked

Tower will sway up to 1 metre at 500 meters in the most extreme, 50 year flood case of winds at 120 mph

AS+GG designed whole 23 hectare KTWFront district. Piles 50 meters deep by Bauer, who did BK's 43 metre piles.

Pickard Chilton designed the mile high version, which was more unique than I thought (sorry astronaut).

Three pages about MEP by Environmental Systems Design.

Software to display information about the building's construction status?

Otis elevators

References

Spelling

I've noticed that in about half its occurrences in this article, the Saudi Binladin Group is spelled with "Binladin" as one word. In the other half, it's spelled as two words ("Bin Ladin"). The source article spells it as a single word. I propose changing all of the occurrences to "Binladin" for consistency. Thoughts? Armadillopteryx^talk 01:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should be changed to "Binladin". Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. I've done so. Armadillopteryx^talk 03:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

quotes and other peacock language

There's a lot of wp:peacock problems in this article, especially in the totally unnecessary quotes from the designers sprinkled around in little boxes. Of course they think it's the greatest thing ever! What are they gonna say - "Yeah, it kinda sucks, but I designed it, so I guess I oughtta tell everybody how it's gonna change every paradigm of architecture"? I can't believe it was rated a "good article" with that fluff in there. Typeractive (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand what your saying, but disagree in that, although it seems like a lot at once, that's how the quotes came, they're all development related. The article will continue to grow but the quotes won't. Plus, it was hard to choose one person's quote without giving other's. As for your assertaition of bias, a few are from indirectly related architecture professionsals, one is blatantly negative, and yes, two are positive, but I don't think it's really going too far. The development may or may not be more or less significant than you think, it sure has generated a lot of stir. And the article is intended to be comprehensive. Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how long or comprehensive the article is, it still shouldn't have so many peacocky quotes straight from the designer's PR press releases, especially not set off in little shaded boxes like it's a brochure or something. You're not supposed to be promoting the place, let the scale of the thing speak for itself. I was reading the article because I find the building fascinating, so it's not like I don't think it's significant. There just shouldn't be quotes like that in a "good article". Typeractive (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I am looking for another negative quote. I want everbody's opinion to be expressed, because it offers insight into their character as relates to this project, that is how deep I am trying to go with it. Also, I dislike removing content. Build build build, but do the best you can to avoid quantity overtaking quality. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is not a brochure, and those quotes violate wikipolicy. I know you're working hard to improve the article, but you seem to getting unhealthily attached to it. It's a collaborative project. Typeractive (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting commencement of a policy dispute which you so openly shun on your user page? Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I came across an article with an obvious problem and suggested as easy fix. You may do whatever you want with that advice. Typeractive (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you really just forge your signature over Zeng8ers or are you the same person? Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I was using my brother's laptop and didn't realize I'd signed in under his username. Sorry for the confusion. For the record, I still think the quote boxes are a bad idea. The article looks pretty good besides them. Typeractive (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Article being used as a source for the papers; The New York Post uses Wikipedia as a source

Read this article and see if some of the Kingdom Tower stuff sounds familiar: http://m.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/wonders_of_the_new_world_tRAh0Toq5qq2wS8qB3FOiN

It can fail you in high school but I guess it's okay for a "professional" newspaper. The 200 floors inference most definitely came from here. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom City, the redlink

I am surprised no one has made an article for Kingdom City (Jeddah) which has been redlinked here for a couple weeks. It is more than worthy of an article, in fact it's a "bigger" development than just the tower. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I created a disambiguation page for Kingdom City, I might create a stub soon. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. It's all the same project; Saudi Binladin=Kingdom Tower/Kingdom City. --67.242.212.189 (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Add Kingdom Tower to this:

User:Astronaut made this derivative: File:BurjKhalifaHeight.svg. so could you add an accurate shillouette of Kingdom Tower to this? Daniel Christensen (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Refactored the above. There's no need to include the actual image as giant thumbnail here. Just put an extra colon between the second [ and the File in [[:File:BurjKh... to make it into a link.

I missed this. You should have asked on my talk page. Anyway, I could make a new drivative of this; but I think we should wait until construction starts when the design will be finalised enough to create a good profile. Astronaut (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

comment on a reverted edit of mine

An unfinished tower could hardly be called an achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliotra (talk • contribs) 06:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not improper, saying GM's new electric Caddy for the 2014 year is a "totally uncalled for car" even though it doesn't exist yet makes sense. Daniel Christensen (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge Kingdom City

I think we should merge Kingdom City with this article because it is one project.Abrnkak (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose the scope of each is large enough that they should both have their own article. If they were currently together there would be a split discussion right now. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I'm sure at this point from someone with an outside view it looks like they should be together, but they shouldn't, it would be like merging Burj Khalifa with Downtown Dubai, only worse because each of these will be larger. I would like this closed quickly as the tag at the top is detrimental to the article's aesthestics Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I shouldn't SNOW close it myself because I am involved. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support There are several good reasons to merge a page: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.Wikipedia:Merging Abrnkak (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If you read further down on WP:Merging

Merging should be avoided if

1. The resulting article is too long or "clunky"
2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles
3. The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short

Each topic deserves its own article since each topic is notable and Kingdom City (Jeddah) can be expanded into a longer standalone article. A merger would be detrimental to Kingdom Tower because it is already 73,000 bytes. According to WP:Splitting, articles over 60 KB should "probably be divided" (emphasis added). Merging information into an article which is large enough to be divided isn't a good idea. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The other article is only 3KB. So, I suggest either expand it or merge it until there is enough material to separate it.Abrnkak (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The solution to the problem is expansion of the other article. Most articles do not get created as a full sized article. Merging the articles will inhibit expansion of Kingdom Tower (Jeddah). Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

fair enough. I wish you luck.Abrnkak (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

However, contrary to Vessey's argument of article length, those old rules of thumb have been quite outdated by faster internet and higher resolutions, for now a 100kb article is fine. In fact, they're often better that way. Additionally, much of this article's length is in the 100+ references and other html, not in written content. Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Will it happen?

i highly doubt that this will ever happen, (remember mile high tower and prince al-waleed babbeling about 1 mile + tower some years ago presenting a rendering with a "groundbreaking ceremony held") especially with what´s been going on the region as of late and the future prospects now gloomier than ever (europe going in the dumps, china bubble waiting to burst). sheer mockery ! the building looks like "the illinois" by frank lloyd wright revisited, adrian smith received his cheque and i think that is going to be about it as for the "total cost" of the project eventually. i`d rather see a revised miapolis 1k meter tower going up in miami. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.87.70.12 (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has the same smell of doom as that North-Korean megahotel that was never finished.137.205.183.70 (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Cost and references

I reverted this edit because the figures are not supported by the references and of US$ 30 bn seems pretty absurd. However, in checking, I noticed two different references are used and have different figures: The Wall Street Journal has SR 4.6 bn while the Sydney Morning Herald has $ 28 bn (though that doesn't say whether it is US or AUS dollars). A third reference from the (India based?) ThruthDive says SR 4.6 bn with SR 75 bn for the whole development, is used in the next sentence. Maybe someone should check all these sources for accuracy and use just one to reference the cost in this article. Astronaut (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Height

The height is listed as ">= 2000 m." This is far from most projections. Let's change it to ">= 1000 m" to match what those involved in the project claimed - at least a kilometer - and what other parts of the article say. Gpuica (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Can’t Estimate Completion Date

This building was supposed to have started construction over a year ago but nothing has happened and nobody knows when it will start so it is impossible to know when it will be finished.99.104.175.147 (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Working conditions

I have, for now, reverted this edit about working conditions on the Arabian peninsula. Whilst I sympathise with the issues raised and I seriously doubt that things will change any time soon, we have to remember that the Kingdom Tower has not yet started construction. Speculating about what the working conditions might be like in order to make a point is not what this article should be about and is very likely falling foul of the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Once construction has started and reliable sources have commented about the working conditions of the Kingdom Tower's construction workers, then perhaps some of this might then become relevant.

In the meantime, this gives us the opportunity to seek out better sourcing. After all, the boxed quotation is from a domestic worker (not a construction worker) and is nearly 10 years old; and one source is an online satirical journal with user generated content that is not a reliable source, especially when it is used to support a valid real-world fact. Astronaut (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Under construction or still a proposal?

For almost the past year or so, I have been consistantly reverting changes suggesting construction has started. The reason is that no RELIABLE source says it has yet started. Yet a few times a week someone comes by and adds that it is under construction. My edit summaries have varied from the "the sources say it is proposed" to a blunt "rv vandalism - there is STILL no evidence in reliable sources ..." and quite frankly I'm getting tired of this. Would it be a good idea to seek semi protection to cut out some of this? Astronaut (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Updated

Hello. The project has won approval from the Saudi government, but construction hasn't started yet as far as I'm aware. http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=97201 Jakebarrington (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The source you provided does not say it has "won approval". Wikipedia relies on material previously published in third party reliable sources, such as this one from the CTBUH. Until a reliable source says differently, the status should stay as "proposed". Astronaut (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Under construction or not?

At what point can construction say to be started... soil testing? site drainage? drilling holes for piles? actual piling work? I don't know, but a recent edit has again added that the project is under construction, but this time includes a source that could be reliable enough for the standards required by Wikipedia's policies. However, other sites are far from as certain that construction has started, with some saying that construction "should start by the middle of the year" though that was February's news), another saying "currently developing" (whatever that means), to a straightforward "proposed". Another reliable site says "under construction [foundation work]". I would have thought the start of construction of the world's tallest would have garnered a bigger press reaction, but there is not much out there; not even the "official" site has an announcement. So, is the source provided in the edit good enough, or is there sufficient doubt to revert the edit or at least make mention of the doubt in the article? Astronaut (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Article now has a source to say piling completed in Dec 2013, but is there more work to do on the foundations ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Smaller than WTC?

If the importance or overall size of this building is measured not by its height but by its floor count — being an indicator for how many people can work or live there — it doesn't even seem to surpass the old WTC Twin Towers in New York with 110 floors each = 220 floors. To be sure: the Twin Towers were perceived as a (symbolic) unity so this argument does count. Does nobody want to break the really old record of the year 1973 (WTC) as concerning both floor count and floor area?--93.206.161.240 (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"...so this argument does count". No it doesn't. A single building of 167 floors is taller than two buildings of 110 floors each, or any other combination of buildings whose total number of floors adds up to more than 167. Where do you stop? The original World Trade Center in New York City actually consisted of 7 buildings: 1WTC (110 floors), 2WTC (110 floors), 3WTC (22 floors), 4WTC (9 floors), 5WTC (9 floors), 6WTC (8 floors) and 7WTC (47 floors). Because Burj Khalifa and the Willis Tower have step backs at various heights, should those count as separate numbers of floors?

Also, the World Trade Center did not have a record floor area, nor does Burj Khalifa; that record is currently held by New Century Global Centre in Chengdu, China. Astronaut (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat related to this issue the Gross floor area stat given by SSCenter has changed to an even less number, below three million square feet. http://skyscrapercenter.com/jeddah/kingdom-tower/2 This doesn't seem possible. The infobox gives the old range, a little over 3 million (usable) to around 6 million absolute total "construction area." This building is a little more streamlined than BK but it seems unlikely that it would have less than 3 mil sq ft, which makes it ridiculous from a practicality standpoint. B137 (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Update needed

The article is now fairly out of date, though this doesn't have to be a serious issue. It can be as simple as changing future tense prose such as "will be" to "is" or "was". Much of the major stuff is the same. No known drastic changes have been made in the past few years. B137 (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC) ..that would put my precious article out of good article standards, as I am User:Daniel Christensen, muahaha B137 (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Height

Recent press has been throwing around the number 1,008 for the height in meters recently ([9]). I speculate that 1,007/1,008 may very well be the height above sea level, similar to what they often go by in Miami due to strict height limits and very flat ground. The elevation of the site is about 25 feet (8 m), so it makes perfect sense that the actual prominence will be 1,000 meters while the "total" height AMSL will be 1,007 or 1,008. But if they're gonna go there, they might as well just count it from the bottom of the slab, or even the pilings. B137 (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There are rules defined by the CTBUH about where the height is measured from. If I recall correctly, it is a measured from the ground level outside 'main entrance' - presumably to head off suggestions that measuring from sea level or from the bottom of the lowest basement level is the 'correct' way. I suspect this is why most bets and comparisons are off, until the building is complete and opened, and the CTBUH have had a chance to look over the plans of the completed building and do their own measurements. For now, I think the article should reflect the currently reported heights from reliable sources; and if there is disagreement between the reliable sources, perhaps the article either stay silent on the question of height or reflect the disagreement (eg. "Most sources say it will be 1000 m^{[1][2][3][etc.]} while the New York Times reports that it will be 1008 m^[5]"). Astronaut (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

New Pictures

Hi team, i took some new pictures of the project. you are free to use them or modify them.

• Project contributors sign.
  Project contributors sign.
• 
  Picture taken from 2.6 Kilometer distance of the building site.
• 
  Picture taken from 800 meter distance of the building site.
• 
  Picture taken from 800 meter distance of the building site. (Same picture)

Cheers,  A M M A R  12:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

article has numerous issues

1/It's not possible for this building to finish construction in 2018. Above gorund construction started in January 2015 and as of August 2015 full floors have been completed up to Level 7 (1, 2, 2 Mezz, 4, 4 Mezz, 6, 7). There are 160 more floros to go. 2018? Not happening. Most news reports are saying 2020 or later. 2,The top floor is lower than the observatory.The observatory is always counted as a floor so this is not possible. 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Please source these news reports you are referring to. Also, if you find another sourced number for the height of the top floor, please cite that as well. Jcohen42 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Small edit

Since IPs sometimes get edits reverted automatically on featured articles, just a note that I made a small edit to the info box to wikilink the term "megatall skyscraper" to the Skyscraper article since the intro of that article contains a definition of "megatall". 68.146.52.234 (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Name change

The tower's new official name is Jeddah Tower. If no one objects I will move the article. Firebrace (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources:

• 8.4 billion real estate deal objective is to develop Jeddah Tower (Kingdom Holding Company)

• Jeddah Tower's climb to one kilometer picks up speed (Engineering News-Record)

• Jeddah Tower (Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat)

• Jeddah Economic, Alinma form $2.2 billion Saudi real estate fund (Bloomberg)

• Saudi's Kingdom, Alinma plan $2.2 billion fund for Jeddah project (Reuters)

Completion Date

The completion date is now stated as 2020, according to http://kingdomtowerskyscraper.com/september-2015-update/ and referenced by CNN. I have updated a couple mentions of the date in the article but do not know the proper way to update the date and source that is referenced in the infobox. If someone could do that, it would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbax1290 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately some sources, such as one I added today, still mention 2018, when we all know that is not possible based on BK's rate and empirical observation of the already well-delayed construction progress. B137 (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I updated the info box. I have not seen an updated opening date so I removed that. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for not destroying the SSCenter ref in the process. B137 (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in the world says 2019.
18:17, 5 August 2011‎ edit
"On 2 August 2011, it was announced that construction was going to start soon and that the tower was expected to take 63 months (5 years, 3 months) to complete.[16]"   ;-)
Civic Cat (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
(I think I read somewhere that it was supposed to be built by 2015—wonder where I got that—if anywhere)

If only you guys knew... I like hurricanes (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jeddah Tower. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141014161147/http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_b32/tower-kingdom-saudi.html to http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_b32/tower-kingdom-saudi.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120121202128/http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/11/2584568/ny-judge-drops-binladen-group.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/11/2584568/ny-judge-drops-binladen-group.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Gallery: Indiscriminate Images?

A progression of images showing construction of the tower isn't an indiscriminate collection of images, in my opinion. The pictures of the sign may be extraneous and unnecessary. But aside from that it is a notable building under construction. Showing images of construction progress at various points adds significant value to the article. Would it help with that tag to perhaps change the name from "Gallery" to "Construction Progress" or something of the like? aremisasling (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

We used to have several different images for each date, from the same angle but different distances. That seemed like way too much so I removed the duplicates. I think it's fine now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I've renamed the gallery and deleted the extraneous images (the aerial shot and the sign). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jeddah Tower. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319084546/http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article481836.ece to http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article481836.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110802-709579.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_b32/tower-kingdom-saudi.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/11/2584568/ny-judge-drops-binladen-group.html

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) 23:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jeddah Tower. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121001203020/http://gulfnews.com/business/property/general/kingdom-tower-financing-complete-1.1079352 to http://gulfnews.com/business/property/general/kingdom-tower-financing-complete-1.1079352
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110813095642/http://www.kingdom.com.sa/en/ to http://www.kingdom.com.sa/en/

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) 17:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Non-free content

@Stickee: Responding to your message on my talk page - sorry I wasn't clear with my tagging - my concern wasn't with copyrighted content in the text, but what appeared to me was a slight overuse of non-free images. Specifically, I wasn't sure the schematic was really necessary, while the rendering in the article copy is nearly identical in nature to the image in the infobox, and two images of the sky terrace seemed unnecessary (the first one, the more detailed one is likely enough). Ytoyoda (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jeddah Tower. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110806204935/http://www.langan.com/web/ to http://www.langan.com/web/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101027103105/http://gulfnews.com/business/property/gulf/tallest-tower-plan-in-jeddah-on-track-1.700123 to http://gulfnews.com/business/property/gulf/tallest-tower-plan-in-jeddah-on-track-1.700123
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.menainfra.com/news/mile-high-tower/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100322204608/http://www.ameinfo.com/226876.html to http://www.ameinfo.com/226876.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tradenewswire.net/2011/binladen-group-awarded-1-2bn-contract-awarded-to-build-worlds-tallest-tower/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://portal.mofa.gov.sa/Detail.asp?InSectionID=1516&InNewsItemID=1746
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://arabianomics.com/2011/04/15/%E2%80%98world%E2%80%99s-tallest-building%E2%80%99-crown-is-coming-to-saudi-arabia/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013010552/http://www.bauer.de/en/investor_relations/releases/press/2012_10_08_kingdomtower.html to http://www.bauer.de/en/investor_relations/releases/press/2012_10_08_kingdomtower.html

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) 18:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)