Thank You for your time, effort, and cooperation. 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. 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. 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. For my second point I would like to note that the Burj Dubai is expected to be anywhere from 800 to 1000 meters. I hope you will be okay with just stating the height as there is no exact definition to “almost a mile.”Ģ. 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. For this reason I suggest leaving the height of 1600 meters on the page but taking out the almost a mile apart.
You could argue that the Empire State Building is almost a mile even though it is a mere 381 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. 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. There are two points that I want to make clear and hopefully you will see that after reading my discussion.ġ. Eebster the Great ( talk) 19:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC) If you continue to revert the article without even posting a single word on the talk page, then this page should be protected. It is called the "Mile-High Tower" for a reason. Furthermore, 5,250 feet is obviously approximately one mile, and claiming that it is not is a misuse of rounding. Your own source at the end of the statement provides this information. 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. Unless somebody can provide a good reason to revert my changes, and post them HERE, they should be kept or improved, not reverted. Also, aesthetically, "will" resolves an ambiguity in tense present in "would." 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. 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. 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 problem is a simple one of subtraction.
The other baffling element of the revert is from "780 meters" to "650 meters." I do not understand this. 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. Brief quotations from sources are better replaced by synopses, and referring to important statements as "the article stated" ought to be avoided. 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. Sentences should not occupy entire paragraphs, and proper grammar requires the subjunctive as well as indicative mood be used. Furthermore, you reverted my grammatical and mechanical edits, which seems to be driven by pure pride. I see no reason to believe this is false. 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. Maldek, your reverts cite nothing and eliminate useful, relevant information. At the risk of a revert war, I had to revert this to Chillysnow's version it has correct grammar and adds references.
0 kommentar(er)
