Talk:Taipei 101

GA review

Hello, I am the GA reviewer of this article. If you have any questions please post them here or on my talkpage. Regards, Daimanta 07:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.sky-scrapers.org/Structural_Facts/index.php/Taipei_101:_Aesthetics#Design_Inspirations is a wiki. I personally would like to see this link replaced. Regards, Daimanta 08:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This wiki is referenced multiple times. This must change. Wikis are NOT reliable sources. Regards, Daimanta 10:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am thinking about failing this article. It is apparently not sourced enough. If I don't get any comments within one day, I will fail this article. Daimanta 00:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You may consider putting it on hold for about a week first. I'm looking for sources.--Jerry 00:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think it has to be that sourced, you only need a citation for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements" (See WP:GA?) I will remove the Wiki sources. If there aren't other reasons, then I don't think this article should be failed that soon.--Jerry 00:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A good article should have the quality that in every alinea there is at least one credible source. The area that you need citations for can be interpreted to be a small one or a big one. Also, the reliability of sources can be a matter to interpretation. That's why a GA review is never a cut and dry case. It allows the reviewer some leeway and different GA reviews may come out differently. The lack of response or progress ticked me off, since I saw no attempts to improve this article. And the way I see it, is that the article is not yet ready for GA-status. But if people work on it, it will pass GA-criteria. I am willing to wait and discuss the quality of this article untill it becomes GA. Of I find other people who think the same, I am sure this article will become GA. Regards, Daimanta 12:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Advice

I would like to give some advice. There are many unsourced bits and pieces. A GA reviewer might see this as not properly sourced and will fail this. Regards, Daimanta 14:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Where?--Jerry 18:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Example:

Indoor and Outdoor Observatory(no sources)

"The multi-story retail mall at the base of the tower houses shops, restaurants, night clubs and other attractions. The mall's interior is modern in design even as it makes use of traditional elements. The curled ruyi symbol (see "Exterior symbolism" above) is a recurring motif inside the mall. Many features of the interior also observe feng shui traditions.

The 101st floor is home to a private club named Summit 101. No information about this club has been made public, save for the reference to it on the observatory pamphlet." (no sources)

The beginning of "Chronology"(no sources)

If you want me to review this article, I'll do so gladly. Regards, Daimanta 19:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Names

Shouldn't we call it TAIPEI 101 instead of Taipei 101 because TAIPEI is mnemonic for Technology, Art, Innovation, People, Environment, and Identity.awesomisticisms 06:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

I would like to inquire if I might make a suggestion to the "Observation Deck" section of the article? As it offers so much information as to the observation off the building itself rather than the decks, shouldn't we rename to section "Observation Information" or something like that? It does not offer any technical information about the decks themselves; there is not much to list anyway. Danny sepley 01:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi~, how do I add an item into the "technical details" box? I tried so many times but could not, just no typed-in result was displayed. --C jenchi 05:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Toshiba has supplied the world's two fastest doubledecker elevators which run at a top speed of 1,010 meters per minute (63 km/h or 37.5 mph) and are able to take visitors from the main floor to the observatory on the 1st floor in under 39 seconds." - Are you sure it's the 1st floor? It seems a bit strange. --the MOLIU gecko 04:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it was just a simple typing error... I would say to research the floor and elevator info a little more, then edit the text error!--Jake326305 14:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Should this page include a link to or discussion about the CN Tower in Toronto, Canada? It is after all the world's tallest freestanding structure, but doesn't hold any of the tallest building qualifications because most of it's height is unusable and it was designed as a TV tower, not an office building...

I personally think that it should be included here, but I am Canadian so i may be biased in this which is why I am posting this here instead. ~lommer

The CN Tower reference should stand. I always assumed the Sears Tower was the tallest building, period. Then a friend of mine mentioned the CN Tower. Depending on what criteria you use, Sears Tower, CN Tower and Taipei 101 are all the tallest in some aspect.

~dwp49423

Moved self-attribution by Anon 67.161.54.54 here:

By M. Lin <mwlin2002@yahoo.com>

Wikipedia articles aren't written by one, they are written by many. --Menchi 21:00 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I disagree with the last edit to revoke the title of highest occupied floor. Occupied in this context doesn't mean that the space has been let - many skyscrapers are only partly let - but we don't discount floors because they aren't physical occupied, or not count the top floor beacuse it's not let. For occupied I think we can read "occupiable" (if such a word exists). Ed g2s 13:12, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No one occupies the building yet - on any floor. Give it another year and it will undeniably by the highest. Rmhermen 13:39, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

If you go to Taipei 101's homepage, you will see the following: " CTBUH calls Taipei's world's tallest claim 'premature', BBC News (10/22) "The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat...says that a candidate [world's tallest] building first has to be occupied and in use. So Taiwan will have to wait until next year when tenants move into Taipei 101 before it can claim the crown."" -- Someone else 17:36, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Came back following recent edit to check what's going on, and noticed my photo of the building under construction has gone. I think it was both clearer than the current photo and will be of value in years to come - it's often hard to find pictures of things as they were being built. Anyway, it's not my call, so I'll leave it to someone else to re-add if they feel like it. --218.57.107.249 07:30, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Err, somehow I got logged out. That was my comment. --prat 07:59, 2004 Apr 11 (UTC)

You might consider uploading your file here: commons:Skyscraper. Since photos are always being added and removed and since wikipedia is not a media repository, there is never a guarantee your photo will still be here tomorrow. However, wikimedia commons will keep almost any photo and it will be available for all wikimedia projects. --Quasipalm 02:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Someone edited the page saying "Da Lou" doesn't mean grand building, but rather only building. My wife, born and raised in Taiwan, says that "Da Lou" means "big building," not just "building." Personally I don't have a lot of interest in the debate, and the editor also removed the "boobies" reference, so obviously is a well-meaning editor, but just FYI, there is some debate about the translation of "Da Lou" into English. PhiloVivero 07:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Philo congrats for the baby. Re: "Da Lou", dà大 is "big" and lóu楼 is a floor of a building, and both together in the strictest sense mean "multi-story building", i.e. any building with more than one floor. In Taiwan you'll find hundreds of buildings with "Dàlóu" in their name (the Mainland equivalent is Dàshà大厦) of all shapes and sizes, having only in common at least 10 floors or so. For all of these the standard translation is simply "building" (or occasionaly "tower"), because "big" or a synonym would just take up space without really adding useful information. So while it is true that the meaning implies a certain size, the standard translation uses the unadorned name. Lawrence Lavigne 17:12, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

fastest elavators in the world

adding the fact that Taipei 101 has the fastest elevators in the world - Sasquatch 04:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When you are in the elevators, it takes around 37 seconds to go from the 5th floor to the 89th floor/ ovservation deck.

damper

just sharing that Popular Science recently listed Taipei 101 as one of 2004's greatest achievements. I also noted that PopSci says that the damper is 730-tons (though it may be metric-imperial confusion in which case it should be stated as 800 {metric) tonnes) and that it hangs from the 92nd floor. Any conformation on the facts?

Yes, the damper's weight is 660 metric tonnes. It has a diameter of 5.5 meter and it consists of 41 layers of 12.5 cm thick steel plates. Also, it is suspended by eight 42 meter long steel cables of 9 cm in diameter. Happy now? :)

Category:Buildings of China.

Taipei city belongs to China, It is not a individual nation. and the place mark in windwind is wrong, the right place is in Latitude 25.03480, Longtitude 121.56487. I live nearby the 101 building.

I'd like to chime in here on the subject, is it appropriate to list Taipei 101 under Category:Buildings of China? China seems to imply the People's Republic of China which has no jurisdiction here. Most of the buildings listed under the category are on Mainland China. --Loren 22:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan is not part of China!--Jerrypp772000 22:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Taipei City belongs to the ROC, which =/= China. Taipei City isn't an individual nation, well duh, it's a city.--Jerrypp772000 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue of whether or not Taiwan (and therefore Taipei) is part of China is a troublesome political one. Setting aside either side's nationalist views, currently, the United Nations considers Taiwan to be a province of China. The Chinese Communist Party and the ROC party both believe Taiwan and the Mainland are one (albeit both believe they have the right to rule both China and Taiwan). Therefore I suggest it should be considered as such on wiki until they are formally declared as a seperate country. --Ninj4 14:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe most people would say that Taiwan is a country. The UN can be biased still even if it's a really big organization. Wikipedia should be about facts and not about UN's considerations. This article is not a political article, and therefore should not be part of WPCHINA I think.--Jerry 23:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Deepest money pit

In addition to being the world's tallest occupied building, this tower is also one of the deepest money pits in Taipei. Many floors are unoccupied, some floors are rented by the government as a form of subsidy. Yesterday, a high-end gym inside this building went bankrupt. What is the world's tallest profitable occupied building? -- Toytoy 06:17, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Good question -- I kinda wondered why Taipei is the only huge building in pictures. To me this seemed strange because here in America, if demand is high enough for a skyscraper, you'll see several, like in NYC or Chicago. However, this could just be due to american buildings being built by the private sector. Anyway, to your question, I know the CN Tower, now owned by the government of Canada, brings in a lot of money for sight-seeing. However, that's not a building. Most privately built skyscrapers in the US are profitable, including the Empire State Building and the Sears Tower. However, publicly built buildings in America, like the World Trade Center have had their share of problems too -- I know that the WTC was empty except government workers until the economy picked up in the 1980s. --Quasipalm 19:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I was once told that the maximum height of buildings in Taipei was restricted back during the martial law days, dunno if it's true but that might explain why the construction of buildings taller then 20 stories didn't really start in Taiwan till the early 90's, though most of these were apartment high rises and condos. Another possible reason might soil stability concerns. I recall that there was a great deal of concern about the Taipei Basin sinking during the construction of the subway system, also in the early 90's. -Loren 21:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Being scarcely occupied is not uncommon for such a building of that size. When the Empire State Building in NY open it was jokingly refered to as the Empty State Building for awhile before business picked up ``ryanpm

ive added a technical data table

but i dont have the height to tip does anyone know it? it should be a bigger measurement than the others

Lat/Long coordinates

I got the Taipei 101's Lat/Long coordinates through Google Earth.

Lat: 25° 2'0.94"N

Long: 121°33'53.90"E

contradict template

I added the contradict template. There are two very different numbers that count floor area of T101. One in the infobox (that I added) was from here: [1]. This site is generally good about not putting in false information and making sure things are sourced or calculated fairly. I wonder where the area in the article is from? It states: "Buildable area is 450,000 m² with: 214,000 m² of office space, 77,500 m² of retail space, 73,000 m² of parking space" 450,000 seems inflated to me -- that would make it more than the Sears Tower which is quite a bit "girthier"/thicker than T101. Also, 214+77.5+73 only equals 364,000 m². Where is the last 86,000? Building services? Also, I wonder if it's normal to count parking space in the floor-area figure? --Quasipalm 17:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

does this have anything to do with the Taipei 101 Mall that occupies floors G-5 and is significantly wider than the tower? --Jiang 23:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point, it might! I wonder where there might be some documenation of this... If I have time this weekend I'll google around for the numbers to figure out exactly what they mean. --Quasipalm 01:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

from TAIPEI 101's two USING LICENCEs (local govermant issue these licences) TAIPEI 101's usable floor area: (188,413.440 + 185,806.510) m² every floor's usable floor area, see here(my website): http://home.kimo.com.tw/cis_taipei101/Floors_single.htm --User:cis 08:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

What's the address?

45, Shifu Rd.(市府路45號) for podium(MALL); and 7, Section 5 Xinyi Rd.(信義路五段七號) for tower. For detail: http://home.kimo.com.tw/cis_taipei101/A/ (see 16th paragraph) --User:cis 08:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"Taipei Financial Center"

Taipei Financial Center, Taipei Financial Building, 臺北國際金融大樓, 臺北國際金融中心...etc. All above are not it's official names, but original names.

Taipei 101 was official named "TAIPEI 101"(台北101) in July 2002, old names such as "Taipei Financial Center" are no longer used. --cis(from:Taipei) 08:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Previous Tallest Building

I've changed the info in the specs table that used to show that the previous highest building was the Sears Tower, using a non commonly used parameter. What's the need to do this? The CTBUH press release of 2004, "World’s Tallest Confirmed for Taiwan", makes no doubt on what the previous tallest bulding was, based on the official and also the most widely used parameter, from ground up to the highest architectural structure. "The CTBUH official criteria states that 'The height of a building is measured from the sidewalk level of the main entrance to the architectural top of the building, including penthouse and tower. Towers include spires and pinnacles. Television and radio antennas, masts, and flag poles are not included.' "

So using a different parameter, just to avoid the mention of the Petronas Towers, is obviously misleading. Quasipalm, please answer to this before reverting.

--Asm 8:20, January 13th 2006 (GMT-5)

I'll revert, but here's why. See World's tallest structures#Tallest buildings. It seems you're unaware that CTBUH has several "tallest" categories, not just one -- There are a number of categories here and to present the information clearly, we need to choose one that makes the most sense. "Height to the top of the roof" as defined by CTBUH makes the most sense as the category to use if you're going to choose one. Why? Because the "architectural top" has a number of caveats, for example, it doesn't include radio antennas but it does include spires and pinnacles, it does include decorative and completely unusable structures as well. Look at this picture and I think you'll understand the issue better. The tallest point you can climb to on the Sears tower is taller than all other skyscrapers. The height of the roof is taller than all but Taipai 101 -- and if you looked at the two (er three) towers side by side, the average person would say that the P.Towers are considerably smaller than the Sears Tower. This has been discussed on many articles, see: Sears_Tower#Which_is_tallest.3F and World's tallest structures, and lastly, the infobox itself makes it clear which CTBUH rating it is using. --Quasipalm 16:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Asm - let's reinsert the Petronas Towers into the infobox timeline. Whatever the "average person" thinks, experts on building height measurement all prefer the "architectural top" rule to the "roof rule" to determine the official tallest. Why? Because when you deal with the fine points of height measurement often enough, you start to realize that the roof rule has just as many caveats as the architectural top rule. To use an example, suppose a building has a flat roof but a high parapet all the way around it: a diagram like the one you showed would support including the parapet, but the roof rule would deny the building its extra height. Another example: a building has a pyramid on its roof. The roof rule counts the pyramid and so does the architectural top rule, so we're fine. But now we make the pyramid narrower - at what point does it become a spire? You can say, "when the vertical addition ceases to be a hollow enclosure", but do you snip the roof height exactly at the ceiling of the highest room or do you allow some thickness to the top? And how much? To be specific, where would you put the roof height of the Chrysler Building? I hope people will be misled less often by these diagrams in the future, along with the leading questions that are always put with them. When you ask an "average person" which building looks larger, of course Sears comes ahead of Petronas. But when you ask which reaches higher into the sky, and you instruct the person to disregard "furniture" like antennas, then it's a much more mathematical question with a clear answer. Thank you for listening to my long reply; I will wait a few days for an answer before changing anything. Montalto 09:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding a new Topic = Design and Aesthetics

Hi

May I have approved permission to add a new section "Design and Aesthetics" under article: Taipei 101? I have read numourous resources else where about its Feng Shui and design, and would like to make a contribution.

This new article will also explain more about the damper system, its earlier design plans, its philosophy, the "Ru-Yi" Symbols on every 8 segments, why the entire tower is bamboo green and Etc. I will add as much as I can.

So before I add the article, I would like to send my this proposal and would like to know if it'll be approved by the higher authorties, or the administrators of the Taipei 101 article, before I can start. I will be keen and I will do my best to fine-tune this new article.

I hope you would accept my proposal.

• ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Thank you.

Stefan Tan Age 17 Singapore

Hello Stefan. Anyone can edit wikipedia. Be bold and add meaningful and useful content when ever and where ever you can. You do not need approval or permissions from any authority or administrator. Usually major articles are on a lot of people's watchlist so changes and updates are reviewed by fellow wikipedians. Go ahead, edit, and enjoy :) sikander 07:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Hi

Well thanks for your feedback. Yes, now I know what is wikipedia, if not, then it's defeating the purpose - "Anyone can edit" But of course, one should edit with sense and not vandalism I suppose.

I'll write a draft in my notepad and I will add it once completed, just incase, I by chance made any curcial mistakes, and I got "blamed".

Correct me along the way, incase my English is not up to wikipedia standards.

Thanks! You're very kind!

Stefan

• ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Adding a new Topic = Building height

Shouldn't the 448 m rooftop height be considered the building's real height, with the antenna noted parenthetically ?

Elevator speed

Changed the speed from 1010 meters/min to 16.83 m/s. This is more standard and also used in elevator speed in this article Burj_Dubai

sorry i believe we should also add some of the events. like the New Years fireworks show and many others. Further information required.

images

Please add images to the commons. This article has too many photos. Cacophony 19:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Exact height of Taipei 101

The official height if the Taipei 101 is 508m, not 509m, it says so on most websites. I have visited the Taipei 101 4 times, and the phamplets there says it is 508m. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) .

That is incorrect and the building pamphlets are wrong. I have a copy of the blueprints. The reason it was originally listed as 508 meters is that it was measured from the top of the platform on which the entire block is built. It is just a short platform about a meter high, but it MUST count in the building's height according to the international standards for height measurement because it is entirely above sidewalk level. In other words, it is part of the man-made above-ground structure (not a hill or berm). The exact height is 509.2 meters (1670 feet and 7 inches), and this is recognized by the CTBUH and Emporis, the only organizations which present an international standard for building height measurement. In keeping with Wikipedia's Neutral point-of-view and No original research policies, it is important to use standard official sources for data. What the building owners say means nothing because they are applying a measurement process that is not used on other buildings: therefore the measurement is not comparable to that of other skyscrapers which are measured according to defined standards. See the Talk page of World's tallest structures for more details on the exact heights of Taipei 101 and the Sears Tower. Montalto 06:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well i think you are right

Pinyin

A different pronunciation is commonly used for the character "一" in Mainland China (also used in Taiwan, though rarely) when referring to a specific number such as a telephone number, "yāo". Is it possible that Taipei 101 is sometimes pronounced "Táiběi Yāolíngyāo" instead? Aran|heru|nar 12:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad formatting in opening paragraph

The formatting of the first paragraph makes it very difficult to read. Does it really need to have nearly every other word as a link? Add to the the boldface, the italics, sections in brackets and chinese and so on it is almost painful to look at. Otherwise it's good work, maybe the editors here can look at it from a reader's point of view on this issue? Thanks.

Function

What is the building's function? Njál 17:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Office, shopping centre. Many uses. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Cost of the building?

In the info box it states the building cost $1,600,000,000.

In the Construction section it states that: "the $1.7-billion building’s versatile needs"

Can someone reconcile this? ``ryanpm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.119.232.106 (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Removed Ticket Info

I removed the bulk of the information in the observation decks section since it offered information on how to visit the Tower. This information was unsourced, doubtless available elsewhere on the internet, and is not standard in other articles on buildings/tourist attractions (cf. Eiffel Tower). Nicolasdz 20:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed Cosmos Tower

I reverted a rather confused and poorly formatted addition made from an anonymous IP today and apparently describing a proposed Cosmos Tower project in Istanbul, Turkey. The relevance to this article was not clear, and it was possibly vandalism or ill-judged content. If there is some relevance of that project to this article, please discuss it here to explain why. Mooncow 19:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan

I believe that it would be incorrect to use Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. This term is not a political division, Taipei is not part of the Taiwan Province. And this isn't a political article anyways. It isn't a geographic description either.--Jerrypp772000 23:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The for the township articles we should include Guantian, Tainan County, Taiwan Province, the Republic of China. That would definitely be correct following the adminstrative division. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TingMing (talk • contribs) 01:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Yeah but it should be made more clear. It should say something like: the official political division is... and there should be a (Taiwan) after the ROC.--Jerrypp772000 22:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And that is not called a "discussion" at all. That sounds rather like an forcible assertion for us to follow. Vic₂₂₆ 18:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Recently, there are users reverting my edit. I am confused about what the NPOV is. Why isn't using Taiwan NPOV?--Jerrypp772000 23:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Because there is a officially defined name. NPOV stands to use the name which is defined by nation itself. Not defined outside for political reasons. See Republic of Macedonia for example. Elk Salmon 18:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that wouldn't be NPOV. If that's the NPOV, then the PRC article would be moved to China, wouldn't it?--Jerrypp772000 19:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Explain please. And as I have noted - we have People's Republic of China and we have Republic of China. Disputes are not talking in account here. It's NPOV rule. Elk Salmon 10:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a different case, it's not even a political article. You said, "NPOV stands to use the name which is defined by nation itself." That is not true.--Jerrypp772000 16:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter political article or not. There is a name Republic of China stands for this country. Elk Salmon 18:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't ask for the country.--Jerrypp772000 19:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It is political location - country, city. Not geographic - hemisphere, continent, island. Elk Salmon 15:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is not a political article. If a reader wants to learn about the political government currently governing Taiwan, then he/she can click on Taiwan and see for themselves. You know, not everything in Wikipedia has to be political.--Jerrypp772000 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: [2] I disagree. Other users like Ideogram and I have already stressed that there is no consensus regarding the conventions regarding this issue. Hence, just because other articles use one standard does not legitimize that to be the universal naming conventions for the rest of the related articles. Vic₂₂₆ 18:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Vic226 and Jerrypp772000. They have been known to push the view to erase Republic of China as much as possible. Elk Salmon presents an nonbiased outsider view. The facts are correct and in favor of Elk Salmon TingMing 22:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And why exactly?--Jerrypp772000 22:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

TingMing said this. However, Taiwan can really represent not only the island of Taiwan, but also the common name of the ROC.--Jerrypp772000 23:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Define "nonbiased outsider view". Vic₂₂₆^說 05:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Republic of China is an official name defined by the state itself. And it's not in a right of ordinary people to define which is better basing on own political views. So stick to official please. Elk Salmon 01:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, using the ROC can be confusing.--Jerrypp772000 01:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It is official. So as Kongo or Macedonia cases. As of WP:NPOV we use official names defined by countries themself and dropping all disputes regarding it. Elk Salmon 01:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What about WP:NC (common names)?--Jerrypp772000 01:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Mind pointing out where in WP:NPOV is that? I don't suppose this is just a dummy link to fumble through. Vic₂₂₆^說 05:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please follow the official naming conventions. You are not the government of the Republic of China. You cannot define the name of our country. It is not up to ordinary people, like Elk Salmon said to define names based on your political view point. We want to retain neutral POV and follow naming conventions that Elk Salmon cited above. The Republic of China will not be confusing and people will look at the article thus finally understanding what the Republic of China exactly is. Putting Taiwan misleads the public to believe that Taiwan is a separate country. However, it is not. It is a province of China, the Republic of China. TingMing 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as objectivity. Everything is POV. You have your own POV, I have my own POV, Jerrypp772000 has his own POV, and almost everyone else in the world can have his/her own POV for all I care. NPOV is almos impossible with this POV war against one another unless a general proposal is reached and satisfactory to most POVs of the parties possible. The issue is that Republic of China is an official name *for the country*, yet most people with few political sense use the term "Taiwan" commonly to refer to the country.

And the above are totally off-topic in here to me. Here's my POV: use "Taiwan", but for neither political sense nor common name usage. This is an article about Taipei 101, not political status of Taipei 101's location. I repeat, just because I've said this before somewhere else, that nobody reading this article is going to care whether Taiwan is ROC or an independent country just because it's called "Taiwan" but not "Taiwan Province of ROC" or anything of the sorts. Everybody knows Taiwan is that little piece of island next to a huge land called China, and that is all we need to concern. If you want to argue about this issue, fine somewhere like Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) for a centralized discussion (or start one), not random talk pages of articles that have absolutely nothing to do with this political correctness. I don't get why this is so hard to do for you guys. Vic₂₂₆^說 05:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. Taiwan is not a small piece of land next to "China." Taiwan is part of China. It is a province of China. It is one of the 35 provinces of the Republic of China. In this case, Taipei 101 is located in Taipei City. Taipei City is a directly governed municipiality by the ROC government. Not part of Taiwan Province. TingMing 05:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

TingMing, I don't think you read what Vic wrote. He said he's using Taiwan but neither for political sense or common usage. And I am sure that everybody does recognize that Taiwan is an island next to China, but that's really not the point here.--Jerrypp772000 19:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, Taiwan is part of China itself. You cannot say that Taiwan is an island next to China, because it is part of China. It is next to Mainland China, but not China, because Taiwan is part of China. TingMing 23:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That is you POV. Many more people think that it isn't.--Jerrypp772000 00:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did the many more people come from Jerrypp772000? Are you one of those people? Consensus is against establishment of a Taiwan Republic. The reality is that there is no Taiwan Republic today. TingMing 00:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

We're all entitled to our own personal viewpoints, however on Wikipedia it is not our place to say whather it is or isn't, especially because it is such a contentious issue. "Everyone knows Taiwan is a renegade province of the People's Republic of China", "Everyone knows the Republic of China is the one true government of China", "Everyone knows Taiwan is illegally occupied". The list of "truths" people fervently hold goes on and on, which is why we seek consensus. Since this is part of a much larger disagreement I would suggest moving all discussion on this to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). -Loren 00:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a POV. Taiwan is part of China. That is the reality right now. The de facto and de jure state. Too bad for you TIers. TingMing 00:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's only de jure. Taiwan is de facto separated from China. Again, you have your POV, and I have mine, we should discuss in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese).--Jerrypp772000 00:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I have said many times, Taiwan is de facto and de jure part of China. China being the Republic of China which is one of the current governments of China. TingMing 01:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Reality, especially political and ideological reality is subjective. If you plan on continuing to edit here perhaps you should reread WP:NPOV as you apprently do not understand it. I suppose everyone who doesn't share your POV is a TI-er. At this rate I just might become a TI-er just to spite you except... oh wait, I honestly don't care enough to do so. -Loren 00:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is good enough to be rated as GA but not unless we solve the Taiwan/ROC problem first. The discussion above, as TingMing never replied, never reached a consensus. I think ROC should not be included whatsoever in this article unless at some point the actual ROC government is mentioned. So that means the intro would say ...in Taipei, Taiwan... instead of ...in Taipei, Taiwan... Any objections?--Jerry 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, no one cares if it's changed back to Taiwan?--Jerry 20:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrch (talk • contribs)

I suspect the reason TingMing never replied is that his account has been "indefinitely blocked". I notice that the current wording in the article is "located in Taipei, the capital of Taiwan." A more accurate way to say it would be "located in Taipei, Taiwan, the capital of the Republic of China on Taiwan. Perhaps a bit wordy but necessary to step around the NPOV minefield. Using "Taipei, Taiwan" as the location is accurate and doesn't make any implications as to whether Taiwan is a nation or province. And while I don't know why the Taipei being a capital is relevant to the building, the "capital" here refers to government, and the government is called "Republic of China". The "on Taiwan" is to avoid help confusion for people who aren't well-informed about the political situation between Taiwan and China. "located in Taipei, Taiwan" should be sufficient. Readin 13:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected

This constant edit warring is becoming disruptive. I'm protecting the page pending consensus. Involved parties are advised to discuss on the talk page. Expansion of this edit war onto other articles will be viewed as intentional disruption. -Loren 04:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Most Important Comes First

This building is still the tallest building in the world, at least for a few more weeks. Any article written should first state the reason for the article's existence/importance. Details and technicalities can be saved for further explication later in the article.Ryoung122 00:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No longer Tallest Building?

Technically, Taipei 101 was surpassed by the Burj Dubai in July 2007, but the Burj is not yet fully habitable. However, other buildings, such as the Sears Tower, took up the title as soon as they surpassed the previous building in height, not when they became fully occupied. So, should we put (|year_end= 2007) on the infobox, or leave as is? Raime 19:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

We should leave it as is, because as the Burj Dubai is not yet completed (it is still in construction), it is not considered a "building" or "structure." And the Sears Towers is technically the tallest building but not the tallest structure. The little spire on the top of the Sears Tower surpasses the height of the spire on the Taipei 101, but the actual 101 "building" (not including spire) is still higher than the Sears Tower "building." So the 101 is still considered the tallest building until the Burj Dubai is finished. Gosh, I hope that wasn't too confusing. =) Dnlkk94 03:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject China?

I understand that this building is in a place that is administrated by the ROC, but Taiwan isn't geographically considered part of China by most people. This article should not be political.--Jerry 17:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That could depend on who's definition of what China is, however I agree that this article should not be political. nat^tang 19:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If Taiwan is considered geographically part of China on Wikipedia, then wptaiwan would not exist. And since it exists, this article should not be part of wpchina.--Jerry 19:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not stating that it should, however there are ppl who have different definitions of what China is and what areas it includes. nat^tang 20:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

True. My point is that if they want this article, which has absolutely nothing to do with the government of ROC, to become part of the Chinese project, they'll have to come up with a good reason to get rid of the Taiwanese project first.--Jerry 20:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Postal district?

Taipei 101 is not named due to its postal district because it's in the postal district 110 for Xinyi. There is no postal code 101. --the MOLIU gecko 05:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Why the page of CTBUH give the height of Taipei 101 as 508 m?

Various sources, including the building's owners, give the height of Taipei 101 as 508.0 metres (1,667 ft), roof height and top floor height as 448.0 metres (1,470 ft) and 438.0 metres (1,437 ft). This lower figure is derived by measuring from the top of a 1.2 metres (4 ft) platform at the base. CTBUH standards, though, include the height of the platform in calculating the overall height, as it represents part of the man-made structure and is above the level of the surrounding pavement.

— Taipei 101#External elevation chapter last section

and

That is incorrect and the building pamphlets are wrong. I have a copy of the blueprints. The reason it was originally listed as 508 meters is that it was measured from the top of the platform on which the entire block is built. It is just a short platform about a meter high, but it MUST count in the building's height according to the international standards for height measurement because it is entirely above sidewalk level. In other words, it is part of the man-made above-ground structure (not a hill or berm). The exact height is 509.2 meters (1670 feet and 7 inches), and this is recognized by the CTBUH and Emporis, the only organizations which present an international standard for building height measurement.

— Talk:Taipei 101#Exact height of Taipei 101

But, Why the page of CTBUH give the height of Taipei 101 as 508 m?
Link:http://www.ctbuh.org/Resources/WorldsTallest/tabid/123/Default.aspx --140.111.99.123 05:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination comments

I've found this article on the GA nominations list. I can't reach a decision on whether to pass or fail the article, but I do have some comments that are hopefully useful.

• "making several appearances in various games, anime, novels, as well as other elements of popular culture." I don't think 'anime' is plural as it should be.
• Several units of measurement aren't wikified for the reader's convenience (especially in the infobox)
• The 'Chronology'-section should be near the top of the article near or combined with the 'Construction'-section. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)