Talk:Burj Khalifa: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:34, 30 April 2026

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

Latest comment: 30 April2 comments2 people in discussion

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 Template:Convert spire is widely considered vanity height..." (immediately followed by the same CTBUH "Vanity" reference). — 244 m.
Infobox: Template:Tlx — 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 Template:Convert spire" in the Architecture section with "this Template:Convert spire" so that the lead, body, and infobox all agree on the figure attributed to CTBUH. Rome (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

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. KilyigBot (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@@ 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)
+: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)