Talk:Istana Nurul Iman

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Brunei.

Architecture: Historic houses Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as High-importance).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryoumi13 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement drive[edit]

Brunei is currently nominated on Wikipedia: This week's improvement drive. Come and support it with your vote! --Fenice 18:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Light Bulbs[edit]

How can he have 100,000 chandeliers but only 51,000 lightbulbs???

That would also be an average of more than 55 chandeliers per room. Also given the price given of construction if each chandelier cost $4,000 it would account for the total cost of construction. This is obviously an incorrect figure.

This has been corrected back to its original form which correctly stated that there are 564 chandeliers. I am thus removing the dispute indicator.

Impossible stats[edit]

I've been to Versailles and the Royal Palace in Madrid, and there is absolutely no way the latter is two and a half times larger. Olborne 15:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The official website of the palace is in spanish but verifies the size of the Royal Palace of Madrid as 135,000 m² which converts to 1,453,122 square feet. See http://www.patrimonionacional.es/preal/preal.htm. The size of Versaille has been directly verified by the palace's press office as 51,210 m² which converts to 551,218 square feet. Therefore the dispute indicator will be removed.

Yes this is odd, Versailles is massive and by far much larger than the Royal palace of Madrid and Buckingham palace, I mean all you need to do is go to google earth and you can see how large Versailles is. I think that there is some sort of counting error because Versailles is much bigger than those other palaces. User:Daniel_Chiswick 26 March, 2007

I've read that the palace of Versailles is the largest in the world. Of course, the definition of "palace" is rather loose. Technically, Buckingham Palace is larger than the Istana Nural Iman. The Forbidden City is not nearly as large as Versailles, but Versailles is large enough to be its own city, while the Forbidden "City" is less of a palace and more like a series of governmental buildings, few of which are very large. If I had to answer this question with one word, it would be "Versailles."

First, Google Earth only shows you the footprint. It can't show you how many floors there are or how much space is underground. Secondly, unless there are documented facts that contradict the documented facts in the article, personal perception is not sufficient to warrant a dispute. You're attempting to challenge the facts as stated by the most official sources possible. If the official press offices of these palaces state they are a particular size, and it so happens that the the officially stated floor area of Buckingham is more than the officially stated floor area of Versailles, what is to be done? Should verified facts in the article be changed because a tourist senses one is bigger, or because another tries to draw a comparison based on an aerial view from Google Earth? Come on people. This encyclopedia needs to be based in official facts and not hunches. Otherwise, it lends credence to all the critics.

This encyclopedia should not repeat egregious errors. There is no conceivable doubt that Versailles is much, much larger than the Royal Palace in Madrid. The official site may be referring to the size of the plot, or it may have been put together by someone who just doesn't understand numbers and made a huge error, but a huge error has been made. It would have to have about ten levels of basements to have that floor area. I will delete the facts that just cannot be believed. Press releases put out by the palaces are basically puffs aimed at tourists, and such things are typically riddled with errors and exaggerations. Most people have no idea what a building of X square feet looks like, and that would appear to include the people responsible for the Madrid Palace site. A credible source would be one put together by someone with a knowledge of architecture and statistical awareness. Official sites made for non-architectural purposes should not be believed blindly. Mowsbury (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And so far as I can see the figure has been removed from the site, so perhaps they realised it was wrong. Mowsbury (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line is that you use the best sources possible when coming up with statistics. There are no better sources at this time than the stats provided by the palaces themselves. You don't go around changing articles for hunches.

"There is no conceivable doubt that Versailles is much, much larger than the Royal Palace in Madrid." This is a false statement as official sources at both palaces clearly state their respective sizes. Have you or someone credible walked around measuring the palaces? Due you have clear evidence of this? If not, then what exactly gives you the authority to challenge the numbers provided by the palace? Enough with the unsubstantiated hunches.

"I will delete the facts that just cannot be believed." Do you have special knowledge that makes you more qualified to determine the seize of these palaces than officials at Versailles and the Royal Palace of Madrid? If so document it and cite it. Otherwise, until you can produce better official statistics, stop editing articles based on your hunches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.218.85 (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with previous user and ask Mowsbury to cease his edits on based on his personal senses. Stop editing on hunches. It hurts the credibility of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennessee7 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added the coordinates.[edit]

I've always been curious, I figure it will save others from having to hunt around. --Bobak 06:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palace of the Parliament, Bucharest, is bigger[edit]

Official site of the chamber of deputies. http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?id=27 330,000 sq.m. surface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.77.189 (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not a royal palace, or a residential building, any more than a big hotel or office building with the word palace in its name is really a palace. Mowsbury (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ, it's the Romanian seat of political and administrative power, thus making it a true palace, and it's far more ostentatious than some island kingdom's palace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.84.100 (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COST OF CONSTRUCTION

Is the 1.4 Billion USD in 1984 dollars or 2014 dollars? Walter Ring — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.0.9.220 (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]