Talk:The Shard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeThe Shard was a Art and architecture good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 21, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on July 6, 2012.
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 1, 2018, July 5, 2018, and July 5, 2022.

Pictures[edit]

Yes, Clearly from ve photos they should have did a giant 300 meter darlek instead of a pointy thing. it looks abit like a darlek prior to the glass reaching the top of the concrete block and it looks much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.127.32.53 (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What, no pictures? Surely you can add one? 217.137.251.9

How about one in German? Edward 15:37, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

well i cant gnu one of my images, the montetary loss would be too great (they cost a fortune to produce). has wikipedia actually changed its policy on non commercial licenses now? gothicform (UTC)

Wikipedia just deletes everything so what's the point? Wjfox2005 13:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Design Team[edit]

The article has vague and disjointed information about the design team and the project execution team. I think it needs to be clarified. The architectural firm Broadway Mayalan are mentioned in the introduction (Sherlock says: probably by a BM employee) but not Adamson Associates for example, who were the executive architect post planning stage, right up to construction. And no, I'm dont work for Adamson... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.164.67 (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest building in the EU?[edit]

To be honest, I'm sick of these constant reversions to the lead section. If The Shard will be the tallest building in the European Union when completed, then it should be added to the lead! As far as we know it will definitely be:

but we don't know about it's rank in the:

The information we have on other buildings so far would suggest that The Shard will be the 3rd tallest building in Europe (going on the expected completion dates of the Federation Tower East and Mercury City Tower). However, according to the list of tallest buildings in the European Union, it will definitely become the tallest building in the EU, as it will surpass the Bishopsgate Tower.

Until we know that it will definitely be the tallest, we will not allow claims such as the recently added "possibly the tallest building in the European Union" to be in the lead section of the article. I have removed this, and we will leave the lead as "it will be the tallest building in the United Kingdom and one of the tallest buildings in Europe" until we've reached a consensus. Thanks, timsdad (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timsdad, I agree with you on excluding any mention of "tallest building in the EU" from the lead. Since other editors were insisting that mention of the EU be made in the lead - and just calling it the tallest outright instead of saying it will only possibly be tallest - I put that forward as compromise wording. My preference is that no mention be made of the tallest building in the EU unless/until it is verifiably the tallest in the EU. —C.Fred (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been keeping up to date with the completion of the Shard and various other skyscraper projects, and I would actually suggest that it may be, for a very short period, the tallest building in Europe (considering construction of Federation Tower East has slowed, and that the Mercury City Tower is not going up at the same rate as the Shard). I feel this is an important point to make, but I'm unsure how to make it / whether anyone else thinks it is noteworthy - any thoughts? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it's a struggle between being informative, i.e., making a point that would doubtless be of interest to a reader, and being verifiable as C.Fred says. I presume this section is of revelance: WP:Speculation. Particularly: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Ostankino Tower, at 540.1 meters, not the tallest building in Europe? This should make the Shard the second tallest building in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.240.5 (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It think reason is the Ostankino Tower is not an "occupied" building whilst it could be the tallest "structure". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.164.67 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radiator floors[edit]

The article's wp:lead currently refers to 'radiator floors'. What are such things? We should avoid (or at least explain) such jargon, so I've added {{technical-statement}} after the phrase. Trafford09 (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The top floors of the building are a massive radiator designed to expel the heat generated by it naturally."http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=46 - Think it's something along those lines. --86.5.226.63 (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicon in infobox[edit]

I can see from the edits that my removal of the Flagicon from the infobox has been reverted by 'Willrocks10'.

Please refer to WP:MOSFLAG

"Avoid flag icons in infoboxes Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many."

If you disagree with this, please make representation to WP:ICON. --Richardeast (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date of opening of the building to the public is almost certainly incorrect[edit]

Date of opening of the building to the public is almost certainly incorrect, as it will not have been fitted ou and safety certified by then. The date cited is the 'official' opening date of the building. The hotel, for example, does not open until 2013. References given in text do not state that viewing platform will open then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.38.142 (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now I see it is on WP front page that it has opened to the public. This is categorically NOT so. Last night's laser light show was just the formal ceremony - the outside is complete, the inside is still totally unfitted and the public will not be given access to the viewing platform until 2013. Please correct this incorrect statement. Dsergeant (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Construction Gallery[edit]

Hi, I just wondering why is the constrution gallery is so short now. I think it should have quite a few more pictures as it is a bit short!

Thanks! Willrocks10 (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure, but I think the editor who shortened it felt that it contained a lot of quite similar images, and decided to trim it down to a few images which more obviously show the construction's progress. Michaelmas1957 13:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be okay to add a couple more images as its too short?

Willrocks10 (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, just make sure the images clearly show the tower's progress; i.e., they aren't too similar to the images already there. Michaelmas1957 12:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will do that. Willrocks10 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline photo[edit]

Jmlubner has repeatedly removed the photograph of the Shard against the London skyline, which usefully illustrates how prominent the Shard is compared to nearby buildings. Is there a reason for its removal? cmɢʟee☎✉ 12:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got your question. It would be good to have a photo of the skyline, however that photo still depicts the shard under construction and now it's been topped out. Secondly, it might be better to have a slightly different photo of the skyline because there are better places to take photos of the skyline from, which may include more famous buildings. I hope you understand.
Thanks Jmlubner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlubner (talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Shard on the City of London skyline, seen from Forest Hill in January 2012.
I understand your position that it is would be better to have a photograph of the topped-out building and from a better view-point. If you can find such a picture, could you please add it? If not, I think having this photo is better than having none, so could you please leave it? Thanks! cmɢʟee☎✉ 11:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'd like to try to re-shoot this photo from the same location using a better camera. Can you confirm exactly where you took it from Cmglee? I gather from the other photo in the Forest Hill article that it's taken from Horniman Museum? It's a very nice viewpoint. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 06:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ðiliff. If you could update the photo, that'd be much appreciated! It was taken near the Horniman Museum garden's bandstand. The museum is a few minutes' walk from Forest Hill station (Overground). Ta! cmɢʟee☎✉ 12:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its name again[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move. Consensus is already clear. -- tariqabjotu 01:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have several times this year, on my way to appointments at Guy;s Hospital, passed the entrance to this building site; and the notice above said entrance says "Welcome to the Shard Project". So it looks like the official name of this building is "the Shard", not "Shard London Bridge" nor anything else. -- 188.28.1.247 (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "The Shard" is the name used on the official website, official Twitter, official Facebook, and is by far the commonest name used by the media. The page should be moved ASAP. ~Asarlaí 17:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've rarely heard it or seen it called "Shard London Bridge" in any media, TV or print. I'd like to see some statistics for the mentions comparing that and "The Shard". Most hits for "Shard London Bridge" result in sites referring to it as "The Shard, London Bridge" or "The Shard - London Bridge", so the "The" is important, and many have Tower, Building or Quarter immediately following it (i.e. it is a description as opposed to name). Furthermore, the building is definitely known the world over as The Shard, there is not more than one for the need to distinguish it with a postal address. The comparison to One Canada Square is a bad one as that building was never called or known as Canary Wharf, which is in fact the name of the area instead. Similarly "The Gherkin" was a name given by the media as opposed to its official name, unlike this one (see its official website: http://the-shard.com/ ). I think another survey needs to be undertaken as the last one was in 2007. Feudonym (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would be great to get some concrete examples of how it's referenced in the media, or on documents from the building owners or rental offices. Otherwise, I think we're just going to keep going back and forth like was done in 2004 and 2007. Vertium (talk to me) 21:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a followup, you might want to look at The Shard website which shows the name as "The Shard" and it's inclusion as a component (along the "London Bridge Station") of a development / section of the city called "The London Bridge Quarter". It is misleading to call it The Shard London Bridge because it is not part of, nor related in any way to the bridge other than it's inclusion in the area called "London Bridge Quarter". It appears as though the article should be entitled The Shard with a redirect from the current page name. Vertium (talk to me) 21:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard it referred to as "Shard London Bridge" and as shown the official name seems to be simply The Shard. I'd strongly support a rename. -- -- Peter Talk page 22:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to raise two issues: the name "Shard London Bridge" was not incorrect at the time of the last rename, but it's now obsolete since "The Shard" is now favoured and more common. Secondly, as has been pointed out by Vertium, although the manual of style recommends that definite article ('the') isn't in the title, this would be a case where it would need to be included. -- Peter Talk page 22:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move per WP:COMMONNAME. Mjroots (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ditto. Michaelmas1957 08:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a redirect remaining from 'Shard London Bridge' Sionk (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Was going to bring this up as well, 'The Shard' is what the website uses, as what I've heard on TV as well. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 13:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support too. — JonCॐ 16:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support literally no one, not even the owners call it Shard London Bridge -- Smurfy 17:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Used to work nearby: everyone referred to it as The Shard - not anything else. If there was another Shard, than perhaps we'd need to say London, but I believe it's unique so far. Ringbark (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per Smurfy. It's name, for all intents and purposes, is "The Shard". No other content competing for the The Shard page, let's do it. LukeSurl t c 23:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alexcssmith come on Wikipedia please get this issue sorted out, there is absolutely no question that it should be called THE SHARD! 00:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why is Shard a "building" and Emley Moor not?[edit]

Emley Moor transmitting station in Yorkshire is 20 metres taller, has a lift, has rooms, has solid walls, has windows, is contained against the elements and is held together by concrete. Why is Shard a "building" and Emley Moor not?

I get it that the Eiffel Tower is not a building; it's a lattice open to the elements, it has no significant walls, isn't solid. Also I get that Belmont transmitting station in Lincolnshire is not a building; it's just a big thin metal tube, it has no practical "indoor" space, and it doesn't stand up on its own, it needs guy ropes/cables. But none of those exceptions apply to Emley Moor.

Furthermore, Emley Moor is a grade II listed building. Here is Emley Moor's entry on the list of buildings and their grades; it says Building right there, right on the List of things which have a Grade. Thus, the fact that Emley Moor is a Building appears to have been confirmed by no less a body than English Heritage, which is exclusively appointed by the government to make decisions in these matters. That's pretty conclusive as far as WP:VERIFY goes. In terms of "verifiability not truth", Emley Moor is verifiably a building and thus the Shard is the *second* tallest building in the UK, not the first. Andrew Oakley (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should probably be had at Talk:Emley Moor transmitting station. It seems to me Emley Moor is part building (a remarkable one) and part antenna. I don't think aerials and antenna are normally included in the height of the building. Sionk (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Belmont is a lattices structure, Emley Moor concrete. It's a bit of a grey area to be honest. Mtaylor848 (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, are the CN Tower in Toronto, Radio City in Liverpool and the tower in East Berlin counted as 'buildings',of they are it would seem Emley Moor should too. It's worth looking into. Mtaylor848 (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By convention heights of buildings are quoted minus non-structural antennae. In Emley Moor's case it seems that you would consider the height to the top of the concrete portion, which is "only" 900 feet tall. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
You mean: 275 metres. Paulo Calipari (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is The Shard is an "occupied" building. The Eiffel Tower is taller than The Shard plus its a "building" but not permanentely occupied.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.164.67 (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Removed[edit]

Removed the following from "Planning" section: "As a phallic symbol to mans triumph over the female race." Robruss24 (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

124.176.222.19 whose vandalism (Allahs Tower) is removed, is located in Melbourne area in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauloCalipari (talk • contribs) 12:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.co.za/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=the+shard+london+wiki&oq=the+shard+WIKI&gs_l=hp.1.1.0j0i8i30l6j0i8i10i30j0i8i30l2.13363.14563.4.17853.5.4.1.0.0.0.927.3205.6-4.4.0...0.0.7SV-JJ60ZCk&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ef3e47e2b0254e7b&biw=1314&bih=606 ALLAHS TOWER STILL SHOWS ON SEARCHES41.3.106.249 (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Itself[edit]

In line 4 this article links to itself. Is there some reason for this or can I remove the link? Andrew Hennigan (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done All set now. Thanks for pointing it out! Vertium (talk to me) 15:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that was fast. Thanks! Andrew Hennigan (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How tall is it really?[edit]

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat states that the architectural and tip height of the Shard is 306 meters (1,004 ft), while the article, and many news sources, say it's closer to 310 meters (1,020 ft). So, which is it? I'd be tempted to go with the CTBUH since they are considered the authority on buildings, but if there's a good reason to believe they are wrong, then obviously, we'll stick with the other sources. Thoughts? -- tariqabjotu 16:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC) test — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.152.120.145 (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated it based on the CTBUH height because they receive their information directly from companies involved and verify heights through building sections. The 306 meters (1,004 ft) is from ground level. Aausterm (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Shard is 309.7 m (1,016 ft) from the floor to the tip as it actually says that on the Shard website. 14:21, 03 April 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:6A9C:6100:19D5:C2CE:E34B:9695 (talk)

Stairs[edit]

How many stairs you must run from the first floor to the last floor? --Melly42 (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC) test — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.152.120.145 (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Floor area[edit]

The total floor area is given, but there is no footprint information. The ratio of the two may also be a point of comparison for tall buildings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.167.160 (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurants[edit]

most banks and companies connected to either the gambling or alcohol industries are unlikely to receive permission to lease space in a building which is backed by Islamic finance […]

The completed Shard will contain premium office space, a hotel, luxury residences, retail space, restaurants

So presumably the restaurants won't be allowed to serve alcohol? I don't visualise them doing much business, except possibly at lunchtime. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror's Edge "Shard"[edit]

So... London is going to become a solid color, spotless dystopian city? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.10.11 (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's the disturbing realization that Great Britain is not exactly on the forefront of individual privacy and freedom of speech... 216.121.218.135 (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is "THE SHARD" re-named "Allah Tower" ?[edit]

http://www.google.co.za/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=the+shard+london+wiki&oq=the+shard+WIKI&gs_l=hp.1.1.0j0i8i30l6j0i8i10i30j0i8i30l2.13363.14563.4.17853.5.4.1.0.0.0.927.3205.6-4.4.0...0.0.7SV-JJ60ZCk&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ef3e47e2b0254e7b&biw=1314&bih=606

When doing a wikipedia search there is a continual clear notation saying the building was formally named The Shard and now ALLAH TOWER - is this factually correct ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.3.106.249 (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. That was vandalism. -- Peter Talk page 21:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of jagged top[edit]

Would someone with a powerful telephoto lens be able to take and add a close-up of the jagged top, similar to http://lh4.ggpht.com/_2sBmtiVwifo/SpxkOIXDnkI/AAAAAAAAAUs/iBQqWwTWDvU/s800/The-Shard-London.jpg , which is rather unusual for a new completed building? cmɢʟee☎✉ 22:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, without a helicopter! To be honest, I'm pretty sure that image is a computer simulation, it was in circulation several years ago. Sionk (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greenpeace trespassers[edit]

Photograph of today's trespass on Commmons here. Phantom Photographer (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improvements[edit]

Hi everyone, My name is Bennett Golder, and I work for Weber Shandwick on behalf of The Shard and the Sellar Property group. Our client has noticed some inaccuracies within their Wikipedia entry and some places where perhaps some better information could be shared. Not only is this in my client's best interest, but I think in the best interest of the Wikipedia community as well. I'm hoping to engage the community of Wikipedia editors to clear up any inaccuracies and do so in a fully, honest and transparent way. Please do get in touch via my [page] if you've any questions. I look forward to working with you all! -BG

General

The Shard should always have ‘The’ as capitalised. The official title of the building is The Shard; would it be possible for someone to make sure all instances of ‘the Shard’ are changed to ‘The Shard’? This comes per agreement via The Shard’s Talk page that the building should always be referred to as The Shard (see ‘Its name again’ above).

Introduction

‘Its observation deck officially opened to the public on 1 February 2013.[1][14][15]’ – technically, this isn’t quite accurate. The View from the Shard is not actually the observation deck of The Shard, it is a separate standalone business within The Shard, much like Shangri-La, Oblix, Hutong and aqua shard. Calling it the observation deck makes it appear to be part of the building, where it is actually a standalone company and tenant of The Shard with its own CEO. The View from the Shard; London24

‘the Shard is the tallest building in the European Union as of 2013.’ – can this read: ‘The Shard is the tallest building in the European Union.’ I don’t think the qualifier is needed, as The Shard is the tallest building in the European Union. Plans are in motion for a building to be built that might be taller, but until that building exists, The Shard is the tallest building in the European Union—and is widely known as such (1,2)

Funding

‘In late 2007, the gathering uncertainty in the global financial markets sparked concerns about the viability of the Shard.’ – would this not be more accurate if it said, ‘…about the viability of the project.’ Using ‘The Shard’ implies that the building itself wasn’t viable, whereas the only question of viability was whether or not the project would get off the ground. Just a thought!

‘…the property developer Barwa Real Estate’ – could this include the modifier ‘…the Qatari developer Barwa Real Estate’? Reuters

‘In 2009, the State of Qatar consolidated its ownership of London Bridge Quarter, including the Shard, through the purchase of the private Qatari investors' stakes.’ – it would be more accurate to say ‘, including The Shard and The Place’, as the State of Qatar owns most of LBQ, which includes both major properties. Architects Journal

Architecture

three restaurants (Rainer Becker's Oblix and Aqua Restaurant Group's Hutong Aqua Shard); this should read: (Rainer Becker’s Oblix, Aqua Restaurant Group’s Hutong and Aqua Shard). Big Hospitality.

Tenancy

Al Jazeera should be removed from the list of potential tenants and perhaps a new sentence could be added at the end of this sentence that reads something to the effect of: 'On 17 July Al Jazeera announced it would be moving into The Shard to open a new flagship studio. This follows the 12 July announcement that News Corp would be relocating all of its UK businesses to The Place, next door to The Shard’. Evening Standard; Telegraph

A couple more points on the tenancy that might make this section a bit more accurate.

Perhaps something like this could be added in to fill out the tenancy section more: Floors 34 - 52 will be occupied by the new Shangri-la London, which will include 202 rooms and several restaurants and bars. Hospitality Interiors. The five-star hotel was originally to open in summer 2013, but opening has been delayed until Q4 2013. Building.co.uk

Floors 68-72 house The View from the Shard, the viewing platforms which were opened to the public on 1 February 2013. Design Week. Telegraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btgolder (talk • contribs) 09:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC) --Btgolder (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the last sentence, Aqua should actually read aqua shard, the official name of the restaurant. Aqua Shard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btgolder (talk • contribs) 11:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these are not a problem, and I can get on them right away. Thanks for providing extra sources. However, the stylized name with a capitalized "The" strikes me as problematic – no other skyscraper article uses that form in its main text. We can mention that it is officially stylized like that in the lede, but In the main text it just looks ungrammatical (no doubt readers would wonder why we didn't capitalise every other use of "the" in the text...). Thanks for your suggestions, though. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made several of the suggested improvements, and added a note for the official capitalising of the name. Will do some more later. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Michaelmas1957. Understand your point on the stylised 'the'. I'll keep checking back on the other changes. Any questions, just let me know! -Bennett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.4.27.122 (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tenancy Additions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.4.27.122 (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michaelmas1957 - thanks for making the additions to the tenancy section. How do you feel about adding in these to expand the section a bit?

Perhaps something like this could be added in to fill out the tenancy section more: Floors 34 - 52 will be occupied by the new Shangri-la London, which will include 202 rooms and several restaurants and bars. Hospitality Interiors. The five-star hotel was originally to open in summer 2013, but opening has been delayed until Q4 2013. Building.co.uk Floors 68-72 house The View from the Shard, the viewing platforms which were opened to the public on 1 February 2013. Design Week. Telegraph. Thanks! --199.4.27.122 (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Whoops, wasn't signed in! --Btgolder (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Height

Bennett, are you able to confirm the precise height of the Shard above ground level, to the tip of the spire? The figure of 309.6m is commonly quoted, but the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat website has 306m. This article currently has 306m and 310m in different places. The figure which is needed is AGL, not AOD. A planning application approved shortly before the spire was completed suggests the building may be less tall than had previously been planned. Paravane (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paravene, apologies for the delay -- I didn't see your comments. 309.6m refers to the height of The Shard above the ordnance datum not above ground level, but AOD is the more commonly used height descriptor. Telegraph, CNN, ITV, Evening Standard As I understand it, AOD typically refers to elevation whereas AGL is typically used with regards to altitude and flight. See e.g. Meters above sea level Wikipedia page which states that: Meters above sea level is the standard measurement of the elevation or altitude of: the elevation of the top of a building or other structure. Hope this helps! --Btgolder (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC) --Btgolder (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The correct measure of the height of a building is the height of the building itself (AGL), not the height above sea level (AOD). If AOD were to be used, every building in La Paz would be over 10,000 feet high. The height of the Shard quoted by the CTBUH website, 306m, is presumably approximately correct. Paravane (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The latest plans from 2011 show the AOD at the base of the building as 4.3m, and the height of the building as actually 305.059m AGL. It seems most likely this is the correct height. Paravane (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number of storeys in the building

There are a couple of places within the article that claim The Shard is an 87-storey building, but the building actually has 95 storeys. Under Technical Details, in the intro paragraph and under layout, The Shard is claimed to be 87 storeys. The Shard actually is a 95-storey building. There are 72 floors within the building but 95 storeys--not 87. BBC, Daily Mail, Would someone please make these edits? Many thanks! --Btgolder (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At level 95, you would be stood on the topmost piece of steel at the tip of the spire. The number of storeys is, in common usage, the same as the number of floors, either 72 or 87. Paravane (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Shard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HueSatLum (talk · contribs) 18:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article and will make any minor formatting/copyediting edits as I go. Feel free to revert me if I break anything. Some thoughts:

  • Check the dead links
  • Images showing the Shard should be tagged with {Template:FoP-UK}
  • "...threatening to render the project an example of the Skyscraper Index" should be sourced, perhaps with [1].
  • I don't see anything on the area of the different floors in the page cited.
  • "Demolition work on New London Bridge House started in May 2009, as part of the concurrent London Bridge Place project" – how is this relevant to the Shard? Is it the same as London Bridge Quarter?
  • Is the reason known for the "pause in March–April 2010"?
  • I'm having trouble visualizing the tower's "backpack"; is there a better way to phrase that?
  • Add {{convert}} for "500-tonne".
  • You should remove the construction gallery and move some of the images to the Construction section.
  • It is past the end of 2013; is the Shangri-La Hotel open yet?
  • FNs 51 and 58 should be formatted to prevent linkrot.

I'm putting this on hold until these initial comments are addressed. ~HueSatLum 16:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for intruding on the review (I know how irritating it can be), but I felt that I ought to ask: shouldn't there be a section of reaction to the building's architecture? I am thinking of the many, many responses that this landmark has produced in the media and elsewhere, which the article doesn't seem to consider. As someone who's keenly interested in the building I felt compelled to say. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's a good idea. Unfortunately, the nominator has not been very active lately; I've left them a note on their talk page. ~HueSatLum 18:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I am going to have to fail this due to inactivity; the nominator has not responded since I began the review almost three weeks ago. Atotalstranger, feel free to nominate again when you have more free time. ~HueSatLum 16:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Layout vectors graphics[edit]

--Kopiersperre (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/london-bridge/
    Triggered by \bdesignbuild-network\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Southwark Towers be merged into this article. I think that the content in the Southwark Towers article can easily be explained in the context of the Shard. Furthermore, its article is nearly a stub, and unlikely to grow longer. In fact, Southwark Towers is only notable because the Shard replaced it. Furthermore, a lot of the information included in the Southwark Towers page is already included here under the "Planning" subsection under "Background". User:WoodElf 12:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - two completely different buildings.QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - two completely different buildings plus Southwark Towers is notable in its own right because of the Peachey Property case and also that it is the tallest building ever demolished in London. Dormskirk (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Dormskirk. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag as there seems to be no support for the merger. Dormskirk (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

95 floors???[edit]

The diagram above on this page only shows 87 with 72 habitable floors.D3RP4L3RT (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Shard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Height and floor count[edit]

Hi all. I know this has been discussed before, but I can't see any real conclusion or consensus and feel the height of The Shard needs to be discussed again. It is listed on probably the two most credible and respected sources - The Skyscraper Center (CTBUH) and Emporis at 306m. The only sources used in the main article to support the 309m height is skyscraperpage and various articles, including a link to The Shard's own website. But I would suggest the Skyscraper Center and Emporis are better sources to use than the skyscraperpage (and appear to be the sources used on articles rated 'good', such as One World Trade Center) and better than news articles which often use the AOD height and not AGL height. I'm not saying skyscraperpage is wrong, just that given both The Skyscraper Center and Emporis list it at 306m, this height should be used in the article to avoid confusion and possible inaccuracies, unless skyscraperpage can be shown to be correct.

Additionally, it is listed on The Skyscraper Center and Emporis as having 73 floors, not 95. Though I appreciate it has 95 floors to the very top for viewing, I would again suggest going by these two sources for referencing purposes and it will more accurately reflect how many floors can be properly used.

Also, the article says it is the 111th tallest building in the world (incidentally, the Wiki article this links to has it listed at 306m), yet The Skyscraper Center lists it as 93rd tallest.

So my suggestion is to change the heights to correspond with those of The Skyscraper Center and Emporis. Many thanks, --LegereScire (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Shard from the Sky Garden 2015.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:The Shard from the Sky Garden 2015.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 16, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-09-16. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Shard
The Shard is a 95-storey skyscraper in Southwark, London, that forms part of the London Bridge Quarter development. Standing 309.7 m (1,016 ft) high, the Shard is the tallest building in the United Kingdom. Designed by Renzo Piano and constructed between 2009 and 2012, it has 72 habitable floors, with a viewing gallery and open-air observation deck on the 72nd floor.Photograph: Colin
Archive – More featured pictures...

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Shard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on The Shard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

storeys[edit]

I understand that there is no end of competition and arguments among the builders of supertall buildings, so I'm interested in the statement that there are 95 storeys but only 72 are habitable. Are there actual unused floors above 72, or is it assumed that every ten feet (or whatever) of spire equals a floor. Thanks for any info!! PurpleChez (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lift system[edit]

I've heard the Shard has a complicated system of partially double deck lifts and you have to change lifts at some floor to get to the top. Would it be possible to include a graphic that shows which lifts serve which floors, or is such information available somewhere else on the web? --188.102.50.223 (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Shard the 5th or 6th tallest building in Europe?[edit]

The article The Shard says it is "the fifth-tallest building in Europe".

The article List of tallest buildings in Europe shows it sixth, after Lakhta Center, Federation Tower: East Tower, OKO: South Tower, Neva Towers 2, and Mercury City Tower.

I don't know which is wrong, but they can't both be right.

Please determine which is right and correct the other one.

47.139.41.246 (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Shard&oldid=1207969126"