Talk:Burj Khalifa

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 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)

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)

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.

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. KilyigBot3 (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)