Jump to content

Talk:Taipei 101

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTaipei 101 has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 3, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 2, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
February 3, 2024Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 17, 2004, October 17, 2005, October 17, 2006, December 31, 2008, December 31, 2009, December 31, 2010, and December 31, 2014.
Current status: Good article

The Reply of 12:31, 21 April 2008 edit[edit]

The modification is clear and significant. I am adding the references, information, links, notes and corrections. If you need, please tell me that make a list of all corrections and causes of this modification. --118.166.134.119 (=140.111.99.123, the same user) 08:20, 19 may 2008 (UTC)

Looks way better than the last time I saw. Good work on citing sources!
Someformofhuman Speak now! 00:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the Chronology section[edit]

the Chronology section needs to be cleaned up... for som reason i cant do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.116.27 (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dold[edit]

Damper Baby?[edit]

Should it be included in the article of the actual name of the damper? I was able to go to Taipei 101 in 2006 or 2007, and it has a clearly stated name of Damper Baby, along with height, weight, likes and the such. Apparently, we view it as a personification. Should this be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.228.24.66 (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Artemis Fowl[edit]

Taipei 101 was mentioned in the fifth Artemis Fowl book. Should we mention this? --Buritanii (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POJ[edit]

Tai-pak yat-leng-yat is Cantonese, not POJ. Someone should correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.14.195 (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths during construction[edit]

No mention of the 5 civilian deaths caused by cranes falling off during construction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.168.132 (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y I added 臺北101[edit]

Hello there: the same way the ROC article has a country infobox showing the name in english, then, its local name in the appliable script (traditional), or the Red cross of the ROC article, in its NGO infobox, I have added it, for what it seems like the policy of the site...

I DO NOT SUPPORT ADDING 台北101 TO THE SKYCRAPPER INFOBOX, BECAUSE THE CITY OF TAIBEI, LIKE THE CITY OF TAIZHONG, BOTH USE THE FORM 臺, NOT 台.

linguistics include both variants (thats y its a linguistics box)Gumuhua (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 臺 and 台 are both acceptable and are both used in the city names. Personally, I think if there's one character that should be purged from the Chinese language, it is 臺. It's utterly useless, as 台 is already both a traditional and a simplified character. 61.224.44.12 (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location[edit]

Taipei is in Tiawan not China. Why is it stated as located in China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.248.75 (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure when it was changed. Taipei 101 is in Taiwan. Taiwan is currently governed by the Republic of China (note: not the People's Republic of China, which governs China). The location should be given as "Taiwan". If there is a need to state the government, it should be "Republic of China". If this were an article about politics and the jurisdiction were a key characteristic of the subject, it would be important to mention the Republic of China government. However Taipei 101 is a commercial building. If you want to find it, you go to Taiwan. That's the location. Readin (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location[edit]

Someone changed it back so i changed it myself. same as before.Sorry spelled it wrong.

Definition of Building[edit]

I disagree with the following statement, and think it would be worth mentioning a reputable source for this definition in the article:

"international architectural standards define a "building" as a structure capable of being fully occupied."

If this were truly the qualification for a "Building" then that would suggest that an office tower that is fire damaged on one floor or an apartment complex that is flooded in the basement or a house that has had its water shut-off ceases to be a building because they cannot safely and legally sustain full occupancy in accordance with city building codes (at least in the United States). Obviously, that is completely counter-intuitive.

For sake of example, when the Empire State Building was hit by a B-52 bomber in 1945, was it temporarily not a building while ongoing repairs were being conducted to the upper floors? --RKrause (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References and Citations should be reviewed to avoid false or exaggerated claims...[edit]

I believe we should review the citations in this article to make it more credible.

It's dangerous and unacceptable to cite another wiki without going directly to the sources of information.

This is pretty much how rumors got started. And rumor is not what wikipedia is about.

Please help clean up this article and improve its quality and credibility.

Skyline68 (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Suggest Removal[edit]

Richie Wiki[edit]

This article here claims that Taipei 101 was "constructed by Samsung Engineering and Construction and KTRT Joint Venture." But it failed to offer source of reference. In the article's reference section, none of the cited reference mentioned Samsung. In fact, the video "Discovery Channel, Man Made Marvels: Taipei 101", which majority of the article is based, mentioned neither Samsung nor KTRT JV. This only proves that this RitchieWikie article doesn't qualify as reliable source of reference.

New Year's Eve fireworks[edit]

Hey, does anyone have a source for this: "2009-2010: There will no longer be fireworks this year due to the rejection of foreign company sponsors such as Sony." I'm just a bit curious about why there aren't going to be fireworks this year. 128.255.150.46 (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there WAS fireworks for 2010, together with the slogan "Taiwan UP". So wherever this came from, it wasn't correct in the end.Grottenolm42 (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CN Tower reference?[edit]

Shouldn't there be a reference to the CN tower somewhere on the page, and how much taller this tower is than that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.21.205 (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei 101 was not the first building in the world taller than 500m[edit]

The following claim is incorrect, despite the reference: "Taipei 101 was the first building in the world to break the half-kilometer mark in height[4]." In the CN Tower article there is a contradiction: "Standing 553.3 metres (1,815 ft) tall,[2] it was completed in 1976." I am much more certain about the validity of the latter claim. --Silentrebel (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difference here is between "tower" and "building". There are plenty of towers that were taller than Taipei 101 (see List of tallest structures in the world). But yes, the CN Tower was the tallest "freestanding structure" for quite some time. :) Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Very good point. In such a case, the claim in the text is not wrong, but could be misleading. It seems to me that not everyone would clearly see the difference between and building and a tower. Perhaps this distinction should be clearly made. --Silentrebel (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would not think it would be necessary, but perhaps a wikilink for "building" that links to the list of tallest buildings, which in turn has links to the lists of structures, towers, etc.? Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REMOVE SAMSUNG ENGINEERING[edit]

Samsung's involvement in Taipei 101 is rather insignificant. There're hundreds of subcontractors and Samsung is just one of them. Samsung's task was public space finishing. That's a far cry from constructor!!!!

Reference: page 78 of a book titled "亞洲新建築 New Asia Regionalism In Global Context" (ISBN(10):9789579226196) lists over 100 parties involved. Samsung is listed way down the list and is responsible for public area finishing. (more info on the book: http://archbook.com.tw/book-detail.asp?BookNumber=80158 ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.243.121.193 (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

height[edit]

Hello. This article refers solely to this building's emporis page for its height (509.2 m). But numerous other webpages refer to it as being 508 meters tall (bbc article, (in French) lemoniteur.fr article ...). I don't think emporis height should be the only one to be used in the article. Freewol (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat explained in Talk:Taipei 101/Archive 1#GA Review and Talk:Taipei 101/Archive 1#Exact height of Taipei 101. Both explain that the building is constructed on a 1.2 m high concrete platform. The builders didn't include the platform in their height so 508 m got propagated to a lot of places. It seems the CTBUH, who officially decide such things for the purpose of declaring records, originally included the platform and got 509.2 m. However, they have now changed it to 508 m (see here). Who is right, I'm not sure; I have a feeling we should include the platform because it projects above the ground and was built so that the skyscraper could be built on top of it, but the CTBUH has a good record when it comes to such things and Wikipedia often uses their figures as a reliable source. The prior consensus may have been based on the CTBUH's earlier inclusion of the platform, but that may change now. Astronaut (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no access at all[edit]

floors higher than 92 aren't accessible at all. let alone wheelchair / handicap accessible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.127.243 (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be bacause those floors house communications equipment and are therefore not open to the public. Astronaut (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know the occupancy rate of Taipei 101?[edit]

When I visited the building last week, it seemed that many of the floors were empty. I also heard commentary that the rent was exorbitant. Does someone know the occupancy rate? --Alvestrand (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Taipei 101/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

On hold for 7 days. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. The cleanup tag is valid. This article reads like an advertisement. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Fails WP:WTW. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. A number of dead links exist, according to the WP:CHECKLINKS tool. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). I see many sources with questionable reliability. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research. Many statements are unsourced. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Major aspects are missing. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). In my opinion, this article has too much WP:CRUFT. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. This article is written like an advertisement. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Nothing problematic. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images from Commons. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Way too many images. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment.
  • I see that you have done some cleanup with the article. You certainly do not have any obligation to improve this article; I am only asking if you may want to take a look at this article or potentially save this from delisting. Do you actually want to work on this article? If not, I will delist this article. sst✈ 11:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

台北101, the only official Chinese name[edit]

‘台北101’ is the only trademark and official name in Chinese, and ‘臺北101’ is never used. The Chinese name of MRT Taipei 101/World Trade Center Station was also changed from 臺北101/世貿站 to 台北101/世貿站 for following the official Chinese name of Taipei 101. Please do not follow some IP accounts’ false information. 🐱💬 18:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Damper Discussion Repeat[edit]

Do we really need to be discussing the tuned mass damper a second time? It's well covered in the section on structural design, but is discussed again in the section on the interior. Uaiazr Jxhiosh (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Uaiazr Jxhiosh: Ah, it was a good idea to check the talk page. I saw a few other duplicates and was tagging them, but I missed this duplicate. Thank you for noticing this and mentioning it. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 April 2022[edit]

Change Mechancial to Mechanical (in Floor Plan, 50) Skovtur (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Taipei 101/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 23:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


More comments[edit]

Even more comments[edit]

I hope this will be the last round!

  • Taipei 101 is the first record-setting skyscraper to be constructed in the 21st century. – This is marketing blabla without any meaning, and does not seem to be encyclopedic. I suggest to either remove or specify what those records are (I think they are discussed elsewhere in the article already anyways).
  • The original 2004 fiber-optic and satellite Internet connections permitted transfer speeds up to a gigabit per second.[53] – This is an isolated piece of information that does not fit in. If you keep that information, then you should also mention what connections were implemented later (the sentence is in past tense, implying that the original internet connections are no longer in use).
  • ruyi – sometimes you have this in upper case, sometimes in lower case.
  • Sometimes you use "%", sometimes "percent"; sometimes "m", sometimes "meter". Should all be consistent.
  • There is a reply above that you did not responded to: Indeed, 60 meters per second sounds like a lot, and should be checked. – Did you check if this is correct? Is this point still outstanding?

Source comments[edit]

  • @Knowledgegatherer23: Stopping here for now (I only checked 1/4 of the sources). We seem to have a serious issue with dead sources, since most had not been properly rescued using the wayback machine (internet archive). I should have checked this earlier. I fear that dead sources have to be replaced, or the information they support removed, but I am not sure and will be happy to ask how to best deal with such cases. Let me know what you think, first. The text itself looks fine for me now apart from the new points above; the sources seem to be the last deal breaker. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last comments[edit]

@Knowledgegatherer23: I was able to fix the problem with all the dead links by following the instructions in WP:Link rot and using a bot. Many of my points above are solved now thanks to this. I here list the few last open issues, and then we can finally promote this one. You may ignore the comments above.

@Jens Lallensack I don't think that was a reliable source. It didn't seem like I would have found the proper information there, nor could I figure out what subscription was required to get past the paywall. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 03:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right, thanks. Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 30 (Publicly posted material, Floor 89, Taipei 101. 17 August 2007) is not an acceptable source and needs to be removed or replaced (see my comment above)
Cool! We are finally there. I am promoting this now. Congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taipei_101&oldid=1202831669"