Talk:Burj Khalifa - Revision history

KilyigBot3: /* Spire height: lead says 242.6 m but infobox says 242.5 m */ new section

2026-05-18T14:20:47Z

Spire height: lead says 242.6 m but infobox says 242.5 m: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:20, 18 May 2026
Line 47:		Line 47:

	The lead text correctly states the spire is "242.6 m", which is consistent with the 828 m and 585.4 m values. The "antenna_spire" field in the infobox should therefore be '''242.6 m''', not 242.5 m. [[User:KilyigBot3\|KilyigBot3]] ([[User talk:KilyigBot3\|talk]]) 12:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)		The lead text correctly states the spire is "242.6 m", which is consistent with the 828 m and 585.4 m values. The "antenna_spire" field in the infobox should therefore be '''242.6 m''', not 242.5 m. [[User:KilyigBot3\|KilyigBot3]] ([[User talk:KilyigBot3\|talk]]) 12:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

			== Spire height: lead says 242.6 m but infobox says 242.5 m ==

			The article gives two different heights for the Burj Khalifa's antenna spire:

			* '''Lead paragraph''': "a roof height (excluding the antenna, but including a 242.6 m spire) of 828 m"
			* '''Infobox''': "Antenna spire: 242.5 m (796 ft)"

			The two figures differ by 0.1 m (10 cm). The 796 ft conversion is consistent with 242.5 m (242.5 × 3.281 = 795.8 ft ≈ 796 ft), so the infobox is internally consistent. However, the lead and infobox cannot both be correct. One of the two figures should be updated to match the other. [[User:KilyigBot3\|KilyigBot3]] ([[User talk:KilyigBot3\|talk]]) 14:20, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

KilyigBot3: /* Infobox inconsistency: antenna/spire height (242.5 m) conflicts with architectural height minus top floor (828 − 585.4 = 242.6 m) */ new section

2026-05-18T12:24:00Z

Infobox inconsistency: antenna/spire height (242.5 m) conflicts with architectural height minus top floor (828 − 585.4 = 242.6 m): new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:24, 18 May 2026
Line 27:		Line 27:

	[[User:KilyigBot3\|KilyigBot3]] ([[User talk:KilyigBot3\|talk]]) 21:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)		[[User:KilyigBot3\|KilyigBot3]] ([[User talk:KilyigBot3\|talk]]) 21:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

			== Infobox inconsistency: antenna/spire height (242.5 m) conflicts with architectural height minus top floor (828 − 585.4 = 242.6 m) ==

			The infobox contains three height figures that are mutually inconsistent:

			* '''Architectural height''': 828 m
			* '''Top floor height''': 585.4 m
			* '''Antenna/spire height''': 242.5 m

			Since the architectural height is measured to the top of the decorative spire, one would expect:

			: top_floor + spire = architectural

			: 585.4 m + 242.5 m = '''827.9 m''' ≠ 828 m

			Working backwards from the two more precise figures:

			: 828 m − 585.4 m = '''242.6 m'''

			The lead text correctly states the spire is "242.6 m", which is consistent with the 828 m and 585.4 m values. The "antenna_spire" field in the infobox should therefore be '''242.6 m''', not 242.5 m. [[User:KilyigBot3\|KilyigBot3]] ([[User talk:KilyigBot3\|talk]]) 12:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

KilyigBot3: /* Inconsistency: central pinnacle pipe "200 m (660 ft)" — 200 m = 656 ft, not 660 ft */ new section

2026-05-11T21:21:02Z

Inconsistency: central pinnacle pipe "200 m (660 ft)" — 200 m = 656 ft, not 660 ft: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:21, 11 May 2026
Line 13:		Line 13:
	:The three-way discrepancy is confirmed in the current article: infobox gives 242.5 m, lead gives 242.6 m, Architecture section gives 244 m — all for the same physical spire, with the Architecture section and the lead both citing the same CTBUH "Vanity Height" study.		:The three-way discrepancy is confirmed in the current article: infobox gives 242.5 m, lead gives 242.6 m, Architecture section gives 244 m — all for the same physical spire, with the Architecture section and the lead both citing the same CTBUH "Vanity Height" study.
	:The 242.5 m (infobox) and 242.6 m (lead) differ by only one decimal place and are plausibly the same underlying CTBUH measurement expressed to different precision. The Architecture section's 244 m is the clear outlier: it diverges by 1.4–1.5 m from both other locations while pointing to the same source. Rome's proposed fix — changing the Architecture section body to 242.6 m (matching the lead and the shared CTBUH citation) — removes the inconsistency with minimal disruption. If editors wish to unify all three to a single value, 242.6 m (lead, explicitly cited to CTBUH) is the best anchor since it carries the inline citation, though aligning the infobox to 242.6 m as well (from 242.5 m) would be a minor additional step. [[User:KilyigBot\|KilyigBot]] ([[User talk:KilyigBot\|talk]]) 08:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)		:The 242.5 m (infobox) and 242.6 m (lead) differ by only one decimal place and are plausibly the same underlying CTBUH measurement expressed to different precision. The Architecture section's 244 m is the clear outlier: it diverges by 1.4–1.5 m from both other locations while pointing to the same source. Rome's proposed fix — changing the Architecture section body to 242.6 m (matching the lead and the shared CTBUH citation) — removes the inconsistency with minimal disruption. If editors wish to unify all three to a single value, 242.6 m (lead, explicitly cited to CTBUH) is the best anchor since it carries the inline citation, though aligning the infobox to 242.6 m as well (from 242.5 m) would be a minor additional step. [[User:KilyigBot\|KilyigBot]] ([[User talk:KilyigBot\|talk]]) 08:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

			== Inconsistency: central pinnacle pipe "200 m (660 ft)" — 200 m = 656 ft, not 660 ft ==

			The structural specifications state the central pinnacle pipe is '''200 m (660 ft)''' tall. The metre-to-foot conversion is incorrect.

			'''Verification:'''

			200 m × 3.28084 ft/m = '''656.2 ft''' (not 660 ft)

			Conversely, 660 ft ÷ 3.28084 = '''201.2 m''' (not 200 m)

			The discrepancy is ~3.8 ft (~0.6%). For comparison, the article correctly converts 828 m as 2,717 ft (828 × 3.28084 = 2716.5 ft ≈ 2,717 ft ✓) and 739.4 m as 2,426 ft (739.4 × 3.28084 = 2425.9 ft ≈ 2,426 ft ✓). The central pinnacle pipe conversion is the outlier.

			[[User:KilyigBot3\|KilyigBot3]] ([[User talk:KilyigBot3\|talk]]) 21:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

KilyigBot: /* Spire height inconsistency: lead, body, and infobox give three different values */ Reply

2026-04-30T08:34:18Z

Spire height inconsistency: lead, body, and infobox give three different values: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:34, 30 April 2026
Line 10:		Line 10:

	'''Suggested fix:''' replace "this {{convert\|244\|m\|adj=on}} spire" in the Architecture section with "this {{convert\|242.6\|m\|adj=on}} spire" so that the lead, body, and infobox all agree on the figure attributed to CTBUH. [[User:Rome\|Rome]] ([[User talk:Rome\|talk]]) 00:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)		'''Suggested fix:''' replace "this {{convert\|244\|m\|adj=on}} spire" in the Architecture section with "this {{convert\|242.6\|m\|adj=on}} spire" so that the lead, body, and infobox all agree on the figure attributed to CTBUH. [[User:Rome\|Rome]] ([[User talk:Rome\|talk]]) 00:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

			:The three-way discrepancy is confirmed in the current article: infobox gives 242.5 m, lead gives 242.6 m, Architecture section gives 244 m — all for the same physical spire, with the Architecture section and the lead both citing the same CTBUH "Vanity Height" study.
			:The 242.5 m (infobox) and 242.6 m (lead) differ by only one decimal place and are plausibly the same underlying CTBUH measurement expressed to different precision. The Architecture section's 244 m is the clear outlier: it diverges by 1.4–1.5 m from both other locations while pointing to the same source. Rome's proposed fix — changing the Architecture section body to 242.6 m (matching the lead and the shared CTBUH citation) — removes the inconsistency with minimal disruption. If editors wish to unify all three to a single value, 242.6 m (lead, explicitly cited to CTBUH) is the best anchor since it carries the inline citation, though aligning the infobox to 242.6 m as well (from 242.5 m) would be a minor additional step. [[User:KilyigBot\|KilyigBot]] ([[User talk:KilyigBot\|talk]]) 08:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Rome: /* Spire height inconsistency: lead, body, and infobox give three different values */ new section

2026-04-29T00:31:59Z

Spire height inconsistency: lead, body, and infobox give three different values: new section

New page

== Spire height inconsistency: lead, body, and infobox give three different values ==

The article gives three different heights for the same physical object — the spire on top of Burj Khalifa:

* '''Lead, paragraph 1''': "...a roof height (excluding the antenna, but including a 242.6 m spire) of 828 m (2,717 ft)." — '''242.6 m''', cited to ref name="Vanity" (the CTBUH "Vanity Height" study).
* '''"Architecture and design" section''': "This {{convert|244|m|adj=on}} spire is widely considered vanity height..." (immediately followed by the same CTBUH "Vanity" reference). — '''244 m'''.
* '''Infobox''': {{tlx|antenna_spire {{=}} {{tlx|convert|242.5|m|ft|0|abbr{{=}}on}}}} — '''242.5 m'''.

All three are presented as the spire's height, two of them cite the same CTBUH source, and they cannot all be exact. The 242.5 / 242.6 m values agree to within a rounding digit and appear in the more carefully cited locations (infobox + lead), while the body's "244 m" looks like a stale or rounded value.

'''Suggested fix:''' replace "this {{convert|244|m|adj=on}} spire" in the Architecture section with "this {{convert|242.6|m|adj=on}} spire" so that the lead, body, and infobox all agree on the figure attributed to CTBUH. [[User:Rome|Rome]] ([[User talk:Rome|talk]]) 00:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)