Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures/Archive 2

Towers in Kuwait?
I can't see any of the towers in Kuwait althought there are few towers in the list are shorter than the ones in Kuwait, Liberation Tower (372 M.) and Kuwait Towers (182 M. for the highest tower of the three) radiant guy (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Great Pyramid
Surely, the Great Pyramid of Giza is the tallest stone structure, not just the tallest tomb. There are already categories for iron and steel and suchlike, why not stone?


 * Actually, the tallest stone structure is the Washington Monument, which should also qualify it as the tallest Masonry Building at 169.294m. That's over 2 meters taller than the Mole Antonelliana which is currently listed as the tallest Masonry Building. --TCav 15:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Empire State Building missing?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.186.207 (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As the list in the article is for the tallest in a category, the Empire State Building does not qualify. -- timsdad  (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Tallest Clock Tower
Surely the Joseph Chamberlain Memorial Clock Tower is taller than Big Ben, which stand at 100m and 96.3m respectively. Its page even states that it is the tallest in the UK. So assuming that there isn't another tower in the running, Old Joe must be the tallest in the world. I'll change both accordingly. Will Bradshaw 13:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Berlin TV-Tower
Why isnt the Berlin TV-Tower on the list? It is 368 m, and should be high up on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.194.67 (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ultima Tower and Mile Tower
The Ultima Tower has been proposed to be a 2 mile-high structure if built, but it has no mention anywhere in the artical. There is also a proposed (and likely) tower to be built in Saudi (Mile Tower). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.244.215 (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikitable syntax
At least in Opera 9.2, the tables are broken on some lines (everything after the country tag, like or 🇷🇺 Russia is in the same column). Writing the row on two lines (i.e. not using ||) seems to work correctly. As I'm not sure of whether 1) this is a browser issue, 2) this is the best way to fix it, 3) why the country templates are causing this in the first place... I don't want to change all tables at once, I just fixed one.80.169.130.254 (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Space Loops and Space Elevators
Should space loops and space elevators be listed on this page, under proposed structures or anywhere else? I don't think so, for at least three reasons:

1) They are highly theoretical concepts, not actual actionable proposals.

2) They are concepts for general types of constructions, not for a single specific structure to be located at a specific place.

3) Most importantly, they aren't structures anymore than moored balloons are, and I seem to recall (but can't find) a discussion where those were ruled out. The space loop and space elevator (like the moored balloons) would be positioned in or near orbit around the earth, dangling cables, ribbons, etc. to the surface of the Earth.  Just like the tethers on the moored balloons, those cables would be LONG, but it would be inaccurate to call these "tall structures".

Thoughts?Fredwerner (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Both are structures, and both are tall. Neither are in orbit.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Space Elevator is proposed to go at a particular place in the pacific ocean. Both are proposals for permanent structures (unlike balloons), a launch loop would be attached with huge tie cables attaching it to the sea bed. They are both proposed structures, I make no claim that they are buildings or anything. The Space Elevator has yearly conferences discussing it, and are taken very seriously. The Launch loop has been proposed in a major peer-review AIAA publication.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Further both are proposed as engineered structures, with mass, sizes, costs, construction techniques, power needs delineated etc. etc.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So far as I can tell, they meet the precise definition needed to be put where I have added them, and they seem to be verifiable and notable in this context.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * These two concepts are very exciting and highly plausible, with substantial, detailed proposals. Yes, these systems will be massive when (if) any of them are built (I hope they are!).  But you haven't refuted my objections:


 * 1) They are still in the theoretical stage. The ref.s you cite acknowledge technological hurdles remaining before these could be built (e.g. the carbon nanotubes needed for a sufficient strength:mass ratio for the space elevator's ribbon).
 * 2) These are classes, types, or categories, not single specific individual constructions. The ref.s propose multiple versions of each.
 * 3) Even if built, they don't fit this list: they will be high-flying objects with long cables, not TALL structures. They will not be standing on Earth.  The space elevator will be in orbit, suspending a ribbon to the ocean.  The space loop will also be far above Earth's surface, and (as you say) it will be moored by long cables just like the moored balloons.  Impermanence is only one reason for exclusion of balloons and space structures from this list.  The fact that they fly and are only connected to the ground by cables makes it inappropriate to compare them to towers, building, bridges or other structures that stand on the Earth and have their weight supported by it.


 * It still seems to me clearly inappropriate to list these here. I don't want a revert war, so hopefully others will weigh in on one side or the other here, too.  Fredwerner (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Fredwerner (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, a launch loop would not be 'moored' any more than an aerial mast is moored; the tethers control the lateral position and shape (in a similar way to a suspension bridge)- and the entire weight of the structure rests on the ground- there's no magical antigravity at all- a launch loop rests all of its mass/weight on the ground on bearings, it doesn't 'fly' in any way.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think they should be kept out of the list. They do not appear to be buildings or structures in the traditional sense.  Also they do not serve the same purpose as buildings do.  We should keep them out until the CTBUH makes a ruling about their inclusion into these types of lists.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, unless you can correct me, CTBUH don't seem to have any definitions for structures anyway. If you are arguing that the CTBUH is the only notable source, then almost the entire 'proposed structures' section is unreferenced, and should be deleted, and the title changed to remove the reference to structures. - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But I don't agree that that is the criteria. And I also don't agree that these wouldn't be structures, they clearly would by any normal definition of the word e.g. from dictionary.com:

struc·ture     /ˈstrʌktʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[struhk-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing. –noun


 * 1) 	mode of building, construction, or organization; arrangement of parts, elements, or constituents: a pyramidal structure.
 * 2) 	something built or constructed, as a building, bridge, or dam.
 * 3) 	a complex system considered from the point of view of the whole rather than of any single part: the structure of modern science.
 * 4) 	anything composed of parts arranged together in some way; an organization.


 * You or I don't get to define 'structure' however you or I want; you can't say that it's only a structure if it is for a radio mast or a building or whatever. If you have a definition that should be used in the article, then you need a reference to it; there is none currently, and whatever it is, we would really have to agree that it is notable here.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look over at Nonbuilding structure you can see that structures such as Ferris wheels do count as such. If a Ferris wheel was multiple kilometres tall, I'm certain that most people would consider it the tallest structure.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that that both the space elevator and the launch loop should be included in the list. The space elevator's article clearly defines it as a "megastructure", and though it is basically a cable, it is a freestanding cable that stands on a solid, ground level base. Wolfkeeper is correct; this page does not give any definition of a "structure", so I don't see why a freestanding cable should be excluded. And the same goes for a launch loop, although my opinion is that the base stations would be more appropriate to measure as the actual structures, rather than using the height at which the cable between the two stations is maintained.

However, I don't think that either structure should be listed under "Proposed". Structures whose construction is beyond current technological limits would hardly be considered actionable proposals that have received funding and have been fully planned and designed, but have not yet begun construction. Perhaps it is time to add an "Envisioned structures" section, and move both structures there. Cheers, Rai - me  21:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ostankino Tower
The Ostankino Tower currently stands at 540 m. Plans to add an antenna and increase its height to 561 m were abandoned in 1994 because it was prohibitively expensive. I'll add a ref to the Ostankino Tower article. Kindest regards, AlphaEta  02:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC). Current tower's hight is 540m -  what is the reason, why this information can't be added?
 * Please read the article carefully. It's already there.   AlphaEta  07:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Old St.Paul's cathedral
I would like to add Old St.Paul's. Probably the tallest structure in the world between 1240 and 1311. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallest_church  Please consider.

Isidoros47 (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

World's tallest gasometer
Where is world's tallest gasometer? Is it really Oberhausen Gasometer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.226.116 (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge with list of worlds tallest buildings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.171.242 (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Against (Other reasons retracted) List of tallest buildings is useful for readers wanting to keep non-buildings out of the picture. -- Regregex (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Burj Dubai at 611.3 metres
The height was updated by 82.1.98.141 on 1 March. Just noting that BurjDubai.com does not report this, but BurjDubaiSkyscraper.com does. Not changing the reference as I expect the former to update soon, but when confirmed it will mean the Petronius platform will have been surpassed. -- Regregex (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have decided to revert it back to the previous height of 604.9 m. We cannot trust BurjDubaiSkyscraper.com because they are a third-party source and do not have access to any information about the exact height; they can only make guesses.  We should keep it at 604.9 m until Emaar updates the height on BurjDubai.com or until they make an official announcement about its current height.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Burj Dubai and Liftport
Liftport has announced a couple of years ago that it will build a 62,000 mile, 100,000 kilometer functioning space elevator by April 2018, which is 10 years from now.

Any day the Burj Dubai will be the tallest manmade structure on the planet yet, people still have it like number 5oth on the list. Suppose Emaar never updates the building on its site even when the Burj Dubai is 850 meters tall and opened in September 2009. Are you still going to list it as number 50th instead of number 1 by a longshot, and are you going to say that it is only 604.9 meters even when it is well over 800 meters. If people are living in the Burj Dubai in 2009, will you still say that construction has not been completed, just because Emaar has forgotten to update? Maybe they never will but that doesn't mean that their information is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldek (talk • contribs) 01:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't only have to be the developer's word that is taken. Any reputable source can be used, including (but not limited to) a trade journal, a national newspaper that can be expected to check its facts, or indeed Emaar's own word.  (If there is a visible discrepancy between the actual and official heights, a third-party measurement becomes more likely.)


 * What can't be used is an unverified height (where did they get the number from?) quoted in an unofficial fansite (how much fact checking can we expect them to have done?) Even if the latest figure from anywhere is wildly wrong, "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (WP:V)  It is very exciting that the world record is in sight, but claims need to have some weight behind them before they can be included (and due to NOR, Wikipedia can't make 'scoops' of any kind.)  For more on the topic see Reliable sources, Verifiability and No original research.


 * Regarding the space elevator, it would be fine if readers can find the cited article and see for themselves that the 100,000 kilometer proposed length is accurate, and that a reputable organisation said it. But at the moment the link is dead, and the archive.org copy doesn't mention Liftport at all.  HTH.  -- Regregex (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Tallest Structures
I have tried to edit tallest structures in the world, to tallest Manmade structures in the world a couple of times. Mount Everest is the tallest structure in the world. This post seems to ignore natural structures and only focuses on Manmade structures. I would suggest eithier to include all structures on Earth such as natural and man made, or just change the list to Tallest Manmade structures. But don't just say structures because Mount Everest and many other structures are much taller than Manmade Structures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldek (talk • contribs) 01:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I believe a natural feature is never considered a structure. The word "structure" automatically implies something that is human-made.  And, there is already a list of highest mountains that cotains information that you may be looking for.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

everest is a part of NATURE, structures are man-made. Mt. Everest is not man-made. is is made by the colision of tibet and india, this colision created the himalayas, Mt. Everest is in those himalayas. the himalayas are not structures, they are mountains, mountains are not man made, if it is not man made, it is not a strunture, HAVE I DRILLED THIS INTO YOUR HEAD YET??!!???!?!!? also, if it had the tallest non-man-made things on earth, it would include probably 1,000,000 things on the list.Altenhofen (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems biased
Where is the Jin Mao building Shanghai? It is considered the 5th tallest building in the "Tallest Building" article in wikipedia but does not even show up on this list. In addition, the whole article seems to be biased towards the US. While I am as patriotic as any American citizen, we are going to lose our credibility if we twist articles just to show off how great we are.

I think this article should simply be titled "tallest structures" and not include the word "building" since a structure is a building. I think the authors of this articles only stuck in the word "building" first in the title so that an internet search would make this article come up first, the wiki article only titled "tallest buildings" comes up lower in an internet search for some reason.

The graphic image also seems extremely biased since most experts do not include the height of the structures on top of the Sears tower as part of the building, while on the other buildings pictures, they are considered part of the building. The graph now looks like it is simply composed to show off the height of the Sears tower structures at its top despite the fact these are not usually considered when considering tallest buildings. The Jin Mao building has also disappeared from this graph while it used to be on it less than a year ago and is usually thought of as taller than the Empire State building which is pictured-again, another twist used to show off how superior the US thinks of it self. Too much POV in this article, from my humble point of view. White Krane (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Simply, the Jin Mao is not the tallest in it's category. It is not a question of bias, many american buildings are the tallest in their category.  Astronaut (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Compareability
You cannot compare a 100m run record time to a 100m swim record time. You cannot compare a male run record to a female run record. In a similar approach the top list of buildings without support and the structures (with technical support) were separated already for some time. I now did separate structures that are built in the air from structures that are built partially using different environment media. I count on your understanding that such designs are quite different in their civil engineering aspects and cant compete directly with each other using the pure numbers. Maybe you will finde that even the Hoover Dam or a similar construction might qualify as an outragous building in this newly separated category. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed buildings
An editor recently added many buildings to the Proposed section. I noticed that many of these are direct copies of the articles of which they are about. Also, some of them have been cancelled or a extremely unlikely any time soon. It also says, at the top of the Future record-breaking structures section, that the only buildings listed should be "the world's tallest building or structure in at least one category." Many of the buildings listed are not the tallest in a certain category, just one of the tallest in the world. We need to reorganize and fix this section. Any ideas? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 18:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I spotted those changes too. Depending on timescales some or none of them could become "world's tallest" for some time, and that's assuming they will be built at all.  To be honest, I wouldn't even have a "Proposed" section on this page and restrict it to only completed, under construction, destroyed and on-hold/abandoned structures.  Perhaps a separate Proposed tall building and structures is more appropriate?  Astronaut (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree about not wanting a proposed section. But, I think we should include it since some of the structures are notable.  I propose each entry has just one sentence.  If someone wants to find more information about that building/structure, they can select the link and learn as much as they want.  And, we should only include ones that are expected to be the tallest in their category when they are completed.  We might also be able to reorganize it into a table so it is easier to read.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a good point you make about people "can select the link". If only more people took that on board and stopped copying irrelevant detail into every article.  Anyway, if we really need a proposed section, a bulleted list or table with just very brief details, sounds like a good idea to me (sorted by proposed height or completion date?).  Only problem is that some projects aren't even proposals, but mere visions in the minds of developer or architects - do they too belong in that list?  Astronaut (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should include only structures which are true proposals and not visions or fantasies. This means that they have a high likelihood of being built sometime in the near future (maybe within 20 years?).  To be consistent with other lists within this article, we should probably sort everything by height.  And to ensure the facts are correct and the information does not get removed, we should add a reference column for each entry.  So, which ones should we include?  I do not consider myself well knowledged in high-rises, so I am not sure what can be considered a "true proposal."  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 01:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I like this in principle. But why 20 years? Picking a number is OR unless you have a reference that somebody else considers it a reasonable one to choose. And there's no obvious way to generate a defensible likelihood figure.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The guys at skyscraperpage.com seem to be able to decide which are proposals and which are mere visions or fantasies - but I don't know how reliable their info is. Astronaut (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The 20 years was just a suggestion. If you have a better idea, please let us know.  As for using SkyscraperPage.com, that would be fine with me.  The only problem is when other users claim that a certain structure is not listed there.  We could also use other sources, such as the architect or even the expected developer.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 07:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Link to a specific page? The name suggests they're only interested in skyscapers. Do they cover structures as well?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am strong supporter of big clean-up in proposed section, but as well in never-built record-breaking structures and under construction section. Any removal excluding Burj Dubai, Watkin's Tower, Palace of Soviets and The Illinois has my support. --Jklamo (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I got a better idea- let's not try to OR whether something is true proposals and not visions or fantasies, let's just break it out into another article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone disagree?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I did it anyway. At the end of the day, none of the proposed buildings are in the world right now, only the proposals, and the proposals height is only an inch maybe. ;-) - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Tokyo Tower
Concerning the Eiffel tower- the Tokyo Tower is basically a modified model of the Eiffel tower and is somewhat higher (according to Wikipedia, 8.6 meters taller not counting the antenna/spire).

Should we re-edit the table and text to take this info into account?

--Dr. Crash —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Crash (talk • contribs) 15:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Calgary
As a Calgarian I am upset that My Tower is not on the list, it is the same type of building as it's fellow Canadian-structure, the CN Tower, 191 metres tall.Altenhofen (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Calgary Tower is not the world's tallest concrete tower and that is why it is not on the list. If you can find a way to add 363 m to it's height, then it could replace the CN Tower on the list :-)  Astronaut (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * what if it was catagorized as a partially moving concrete tower?Altenhofen (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If it is the tallest revolving restaurant, and you can gain some consensus for it's inclusion in a new category, then maybe. Astronaut (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ...but a quick check of the entries in the List of revolving restaurants, revealed two I've visited - the Sky Tower (Auckland, NZ) and Stratosphere Tower (Las vegas, NV) - are considerably taller, and I'm sure a more thorough search could find more. Astronaut (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate
Comment moved from article text Astronaut (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

i dont know how to tag this page but its chart on tallest structures is terribly inaccurate and shuld be resourced if someone has the time to sort it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.154.85 (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In which way is it terribly inaccurate? Astronaut (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

spurious categories
tallest five-sided building? tallest 90°-twisted building? seriously?


 * I agree that categories needs big clean-up (also most of them are totally unsourced). My candidates for deletion:
 * Mast radiator, insulated against ground; twin towers, Guyed tubular steel mast, Partially guyed tower, Five-sided building, Concrete dam, Electricity pylon built of concrete, Electricity pylon of HVDC-powerline, 90° twisted building, Inclined structure, Stadium, Memorial cross, dome, Air traffic control tower, Flagpole, free-standing; Equilateral Pentagon, Aerial tramway support tower, Electricity pylon of powerline for single phase AC, Lantern Tower, Statue (not including pedestal), Brick lighthouse, Electricity Pylon, Monolithic obelisk
 * replace Minaret, church building, Church tower, Pre-modern Chinese pagoda, Brick minaret with religious building --Jklamo (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree -- Regregex (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cautious Agree - Some categories seem to have been created simply to get a particular building into this list. For example, is it really necessary to distinguish between Guyed tubular steel mast, Partially guyed tower and Mast radiator or between electricity pylons carrying different electrical transmission systems?.  However, it is easy to get carried away with the category merging.  I think that religious building in particular is too broad a category.  Astronaut (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends - I think each category and the buildings in that category need to be mentioned by a reliable source, unrelated to the subject; otherwise the categories are WP:OR.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 12:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, until proven spurious - I agree with Wolfkeeper's comment, but suspect most of these are legit. Don't assume WP:OR if you haven't even tried to look for a source yourself.  The onus on any editor is to do the legwork, and find the missing citations (or seek and find none), before deciding whether a record is legitimate rather than just deleting info en masse for categories you haven't bothered to investigate.  A simple google search turned up a Guinness World Records page supporting the listing here for the world's tallest concrete dam.  I suspect that most of these categories can be found in similarly reliable sources.   Fredwerner (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than prove spuriousness (to whom? by what definition?), suggest handfuls of tags with dates, followed a reasonable time later by removal according to WP:BURDEN. -- Regregex (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, in the wikipedia, it's up to the person that originally inserted material to prove it, not subsequent editors. It's perfectly OK to leave it if you want to give it the benefit of the doubt, but essentially any unreferenced material can be removed at any time by anyone (provided you're not being a WP:DICK).- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Washington Monument
The wiki for the Washington Monument states that it is the world's tallest stone structure, at 169.294 meters, yet this page lists the Mole Antonelliana as the tallest Masonry Building, even though it is 167 meters tall. The Washington Monument is made of marble, granite, and sandstone. That qualifies as Masonry, doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCav (talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I thought I had signed the preceding entry.TCav 23:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Timsdad for correcting my erroneous change to the article. Perhaps, instead of just watching the article, you could also contribute to the discussion as well. --TCav 05:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCav (talk • contribs)
 * Yeah, sorry about that. timsdad  06:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

hey
hey wht up wht are you doing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.237.2 (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Restyling of lists
A recent edit (and some previous attempts too) made a large number of changes to the wiki markup, with the apparent purpose of changing the style of the tables, plus a few minor language fixes such as capitalisation, dashes, etc. Unfortunately, the anon editor doesn't explain why they think such restyling is necessary. I have started this discussion in order to see where consensus lies when it comes to the restyling of the lists. Astronaut (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Burj's records, long decimal placings and flag icons
65.4.86.217, the version you reverted to is not accurate, for the following reasons:
 * No matter whether Burj Dubai is completed or not, it is still the tallest structure. All that information is not necessary in a caption.
 * It is clear that this figure: 628.8547225724 m is clearly inaccurate, as no building can be measured to that degree. It is, as Dricherby said, "ludicrous overprecision".
 * The fact that Taipei 101 is officially the tallest building in the world does not need to be repeated four times throughout the article.
 * In my opinion, the flag icons just clutter up the tables and make them more difficult to read, but if they are needed, then I have no objection.

I have undone your edit, whilst retaining the information about the SWFC having the highest observation deck. Please discuss here. timsdad  (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Timsdad. Do not add unnecessary bolding or information such as "democratic island nation" to the Taipei 101 section.  The long decimal places for heights is ridiculous and obviously untrue.  I don't see reason to include another 4 kb worth of flags unless there is sufficient consensus to do so.   Reywas92 Talk  02:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Then let's come to a compromise! Put your correct measurement value into the article. But the additional info about Taipei 101 must stay as it prevents confusion to uninformed readers who may be mislead into thinking that the Burj Dubai holds the record for Tallest Building in the world when in fact it still doesn't. We must put info based on facts. The flags must stay also as it provides accurate information to the general public that is useful, otherwise alot of people, particularly young middle or highschool students don't know about them. But like I said, make your corrections but leave my improvements in there for the benefit of the world. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.86.217 (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have already stated, Burj Dubai IS OFFICIALLY the tallest STRUCTURE. Reywas and I have both agreed that the "democratic island nation" information is completely unnecessary. You also re added the ludicrous decimals, despite you saying in your edit summary that "The "ludicrous measurement" has been removed". It is very clear that the tallest buildings is still Taipei 101, and seeing as this article is the tallest buildings and structures in the world, people wanting to find a list of buildings can go to the List of tallest buildings in the world. I have undone your edit once again. The only possibly useful changes you have made are the flag icons. If you wish for the flag icons to stay in the article, please make that edit on its own. Thanks, timsdad   (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The Burj Dubai is the Tallest Structure but NOT the Tallest Building in the World yet. So we make that distinction. As for the "democratic island nation" that must stay due to the fact that many people don't know that the Republic of China (Taiwan) refers to the island nation of Taiwan, they would simply think it is refering to "China" otherwise officially known as the People's Republic of China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.86.217 (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is very clear that Burj Dubai isn't the tallest building yet. If you take the time to read from the top of the article to Tallest structure by category, then you'll see.
 * "Democratic island nation" does not need to be used, as it isn't used anywhere else. I don't know about you, but most people would read "Republic of China (Taiwan)" and know that the text is referring to the island of Taiwan (the "Taiwan" in the brackets just gives it away, really). I see your most recent changes have been reverted by Elipongo according to WP:NPOV. Also, please always sign your posts with four tildes. timsdad   (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

INCO Suerstack, 380 metres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inco_Superstack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.208.60 (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The tallest chimney is at the GRES-2 Power Station in Ekibastuz, Kazakhstan. timsdad   (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I know the INCO Superstack isn't the tallest chimney. My point is that it one of many structures missed out of the list. Could someone add it please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.208.60 (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The list, as the heading clearly states, is for the tallest structure by category. The INCO Superstack falls under the 'chimney' category, and it is not the tallest chimney, as you know. timsdad   (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Tallest clock tower
I've read in several sources that the NTT Docomo Yoyogi Building is the tallest clock tower in the world. Obviously, the building isn't solely used as a clock tower as Joseph Chamberlain Memorial Clock Tower is, but where is it stated that that is a stipulation? I believe this should be changed. --TorsodogTalk 19:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is officially the tallest clock tower in the world. I have changed the article to reflect this. timsdad   (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --TorsodogTalk 15:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Troll A Plataform?
472 m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.82.38.24 (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Decimal Places
I have removed decimals after the thousandth's place for metric and converted decimal feet to inches (to the tenth's place). In my opinion, even this last digit is unnecessary, but I won't change it unless I get more support. Eebster the Great (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Cathedral of Strasbourg?
I don't see the Cathedral of Strasbourg here. It is taller than the Gizeh pyramids tough...142 m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.168.24 (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Before adding Strasbourg Cathedral, you should ask yourself: is it taller than Ulm Minster (the current tallest church tower)? Astronaut (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ursa tension leg platform?
Earlier today, Joethesandwichman created a page at Ursa tension leg platform and included a sentence (wrongly placed) in this article. I did some minor research and it seems as if this oil rig does exist, according to this, yet I can't find any sources elsewhere, or even an actual height! A comment on the above site by some random person states that "it has a total height of 4,285 feet and holds the Guenness Book’s world record as the tallest building in the world" yet in this article it says that the Petronius Platform is the Guinness World Record holder. It seems the article creator decided that this person's comment was referring to the Ursa platform, and used it as the height.

I then put the platform's article up for deletion, but it got reverted by RHaworth, and he used the above article as a source.

I believe the question is not whether or not this platform exists, but more if it is actually "the world's tallest structure". I very much doubt it... -- timsdad  (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have found one other site, and it seems to be pretty legitimate: . If this platform is the tallest structure in the world, why are there hardly any sites relating to it and why has nobody editing Wikipedia ever heard of it before until now? -- timsdad  (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a tension-leg platform, a floating structure held in place by sixteen massive anchors. Its claim to be the largest of those was contradicted some months ago. Its big; it deserves a Wikipedia article but it don't really belong on this page. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess that's settled then. It's not media supported (by the water), nor by pylons into the ground (as the other platforms in this article are), but a more accurate comparison would be the many masts that are supported by guy-wires. It's probably not worth creating a whole new section in the table under Tallest structures, freestanding structures, and buildings, so no, it has no place in this article. -- timsdad  (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I just objected to the use of the word "wire". In the article you found they are called "tendons". "The TLP is held on-station by 16 tendons, four per corner. These have a diameter of 32in and a wall thickness of 1.5in. Each tendon is approximately 3,800ft long and the total weight for the 16 tendons is approximately 16,000t." Not what I would call "wires"! &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm not objecting, it was a simple mistake in the writing... -- timsdad  (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

History
This section is *full* of ommissions and errors. Ulm Munster for example is not lised in favour of Cologne, when it's fairly well known that Ulm was made taller specifically to outdo Cologne Cathedral. CharlieRCD (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I quite understand that statement there. The Ulm Cathedral isn't in the History table because it was never the tallest structure in the world. The Washington Monument was completed before the Minster could take the title. -- timsdad  (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand Sky Tower
The Sky Tower is an observation and telecommunications tower located on the corner of Victoria and Federal Streets in the Auckland CBD, Auckland City, New Zealand. It is 328 metres (1,076 ft) tall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Tower 122.57.174.173 (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)NZR


 * Yes, it is a tower in Auckland; I've seen it - you can sort-of "bungee" off the roof. However, it is not the tallest tower of its type in the world.  The CN Tower in Toronto is considerably taller.  The problem is, way too many people think this article is a list of tall structures, but it is in fact a list of the tallest structures in a number of categories.  The fact that a particular tower is the tallest in your city or your country doesn't matter; if it isn't the tallest tower in the world, it doesn't get listed.  Astronaut (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Tallest at which point of time?
Could we please have 'Year Completed' column for the Tallest Structure by Category table? Seems to me like that information is vital to discern particularly rapid advancements in this area for a country. The age of the building and the time at which it was the tallest are both conveyed de facto by Year Completed. SuspendedSky (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit: If there are no responses or objections to this suggestion by one week from the date of original post, I'll proceed to add the Year Completed column. SuspendedSky (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm currently working on it. -- timsdad  (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, there are a few completion dates that I didn't have time to research, but you can get onto that or I will at a later date as I don't currently have time to do so. Thanks for bringing this up, by the way. It's important that the completion date be seen in the table. -- timsdad  (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the effort to add the dates, I would have added them now if they weren't already there. SuspendedSky (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Category removal suggestions
On going through the category list, I feel that there are a few categories that should be removed, as they appear as if they've just been added and unnoticed. Below are the few I feel possibly don't belong here anymore. Some are a bit iffy and I don't really mind, but I added them nevertheless:

The most likely to be kept in the article I would say is 90° twisted building and Light advertisement. Please give your input, and if you feel there isn't good enough reason to remove these, I'll give my opinions for each. Thanks, timsdad   (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As if we haven't got enough problems with people coming by several times a week and adding shorter buildings in their country/city - categories like these promote the idea that if you can think up a category, then you can add your favourite building/structure and have it stay on the list. I say get rid of these.  Astronaut (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Tower of babel?
the reports we have from very old texts say that the tower of babel was over a mile high. which would make it taller than the burj dubai. however the tower of babel was apparently destroyed thousands of years ago but it still might have been the tallest building ever built by man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.171.170.147 (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Tower of Babel article deals with the tower's height in quite some detail and suggests various heights up to 7000+ m. However, despite the story in Book of Genesis, there is no compelling archeological evidence that the Tower of Babel ever actually existed.  Astronaut (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

UK tallest building...
Just noticed after reading another wiki page about a structure in Huddersfield called Emley Moor Mast - seen here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emley_Moor_transmitting_station

In the words of the page: The structure is a tapered, reinforced concrete tower. It is the tallest freestanding structure in the United Kingdom at a height of 330.4 metres (1,084 ft).

Sureley this deserves recognition on this page... the only problem is I have no editing skills for this kind of thing, help anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.209.184 (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Emley Moor is not the tallest concrete tower in the world. At 610 m the Guangzhou TV & Sightseeing Tower is almost twice as tall.  However, Emley Moor is quite rightly listed in the List of tallest structures in the United Kingdom article.  Astronaut (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is also a distinction between structures and buildings. Emley Moor is the UK's tallest structure, while One Canada Square in London's Canary Wharf is the UK's tallest building.  Astronaut (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Glasgow Science centre
Why is the Glasgow Science center not in this. I know it is not the biggest structure but it s taller than some of the structures in the table. It stands at 127 metres (417 Ft), it was finished in 2001 and is used as an Observation tower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncee1  (talk • contribs)  20:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The table I assume you are speaking of is only for the tallest structure in each category. The tallest observation tower is the CN Tower, which is muc taller than the Glagow Science centre. -- timsdad  (talk)

Abraj Al Bait Towers image
Aseer 22 has added an image of the Abraj Al Bait Towers to the under construction section of this article several times, all but the most recent of which have been reverted by Astronaut. Rather than this continuing, I've decided to begin this discussion so that we can talk about it here, rather than in repetitive edit summaries. A previous discussion between me and Aseer 22 regarding the AABT images can be found on my talk page. I have invited both Aseer 22 and Astronaut to join this discussion. Thanks in advance, timsdad   (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that the image has no place in the section as there are currently ten structures in that list that are also notable, (obviously) and we can hardly include images for all of them. Why should the Abraj Al Bait Towers have an image? The fact that it will be the largest building by volume on completion is irrelevant, as the article is about the tallest buildings and structures. If anything, the Guangzhou TV & Sightseeing Tower should have an image, as it is now the tallest tower. I'm not suggesting we add that, I would much prefer no image, suggesting that each structure is important and there can be no representative for all of them. -- timsdad  (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The under-construction images have no place in this article for exactly the same reasons as mentioned by Timsdad. It makes no sense to have an image of one and no images of the others in the list, and it would be impractical to maintain many images there.  The best option is to have no under-construction images - it looks better and reader can click on the individual article links if they want more info.  That said, Aseer 22's images are quite good and would serve well as part of a construction progress gallery in the Abraj Al Bait Towers article (in the same way that Burj Dubai has a gallery of construction images).  Indeed, on one occasion, I specifically moved an image from this article to the Abraj Al Bait Towers article and made clear my reasoning in the edit summary.  Astronaut (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

CTBUH height criteria change
A recent edit has brought to my attention that the CTBUH has changed its height criteria. I reverted the change because the text was copied word for word from an article on the CTBUH website. I can summarise the new changes in a sentence, but is it really necessary to write about it in this article? I will now change the criteria in the history of record holders section, but I don't feel its necessary to write much, if anything, about the CTBUH changing the criteria. -- timsdad  (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did end up writing a bit about the changes. I'm not too sure about a new event in the history of record holders section... feel free to remove that part. As for the list of tallest buildings in the world, that's always been ranked by Emporis standards, do we need to add another section with measures to highest occupied floor, now? -- timsdad  (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be useful if the CTBUH article was updated. Astronaut (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely forgot about that. It's done now. -- timsdad  (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Guangzhou TV & Sightseeing Tower
Recent edits on List of tallest towers in the world by Wladyslaw Sojka have been adding the Guangzhou TV & Sightseeing Tower to the list as a completed tower. I reverted his initial edit, as SkyscraperPage still states the tower's status as construction. Wladyslaw edited File:Tallest towers in the world.PNG to include the tower, but I have not yet removed it. However, I have removed all occurences of it on the list of tallest towers in the world, as I feel it is misleading information until the tower is confirmed as topped-out. Wladyslaw's "reasoning" for his addition can be found on my talk page. -- timsdad  (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Guangzhou Television Tower is still under contruction, but it has reached his final elevation as you can see it at the pictures, that was made in June 2009 (File:Guangzhou Tower.jpg). Interior parts and facilities of the tower are under contruction til December 2009 but the Burj Dubai is also under construction but is listed at List of buildings with 100 floors or more. Why the Burj Dubai is already in this list but the Guangzhou had not to be? – Wladyslaw (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please provide a source for the topping-out. Thanks, timsdad   (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I believe you now. The Emporis entry for the tower has its status as under construction [topped out]. -- timsdad  (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What does Topped out mean?--194.106.137.50 (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A building or structure is considered topped out when it has reached its final height. Once it has been topped-out, we can classify that building/structure as the tallest of its kind if appropriate as we know it will not progress any further. See the article on topping out for more info. -- timsdad  (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Article organisation
I realise this subject is fraught with definitional difficulties, but as a newcomer to these articles it's hard to understand the need for both List of tallest buildings and structures in the world and List of tallest structures in the world. Logically, the only way that the content of these two articles could be different is if some buildings aren't structures, which seems a strange idea. Am I missing something? 86.161.40.145 (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from. This article is hardly a single list like the buildings and structures lists but many smaller lists. There isn't really a need for it but it's very handy. -- timsdad  (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Right ... I wonder if it would make sense to look for a new name for List of tallest buildings and structures in the world -- something that reflects the fact that it is not a single list like the other similarly-named articles? 86.161.40.145 (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC).
 * I was thinking that but I couldn't come up with any good nanes. Maybe "Lists of buildings and structures" or something is more appropriate. -- timsdad  (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's tricky. I think the word "tall", or something to do with height anyway, ought to be in the title. How about "Categories of tall structures"? Incidentally, there is a similar issue with the raft of articles "List of tallest buildings and structures in " versus "List of tallest structures in ". On the face of it, there would appear to be no difference between the two and they should all be standardised as "List of tallest structures in ". This also impacts the organisation of TBSW which has two sections -- "Buildings and structures" and "Structures" -- that seem logically indistinguishable. 86.161.40.145 (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC).
 * You're absolutely right. From Template:TBSW, it can be seen that no two countries/regions have a structures and a buildings and structures list, which makes the job easier. Do you think we should begin moving the articles now, or wait for some more editors to discuss it all here? -- timsdad  (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Might I add, the original reason for this inconsistency was probably because countries like China and Australia, for example, mostly have tall buildings in their lists rather than masts and chimneys. The Bulgaria and Spain lists are mostly populated by transmitters and chimneys. -- timsdad  (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd just go ahead and do it if you agree it makes sense. If someone later comes along with compelling objections then the articles can always be moved back. Another peculiarity I've noticed is that in this article (and also in List of tallest structures in the world), the unqualified word "structure" is linked to "nonbuilding structure" (which in turn redirects to "infrastructure", in which that term is not actually mentioned). It looks as if at one time the word "structure" might have been intended to exclude "building", but that idea was later abandoned and a few links that now appear to make little sense were left in place. 81.157.197.235 (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I think that editors with interest/experience in this group of articles should continue trying to agree a new name for this article that reflects its "overview" nature (as opposed to suggesting a single list and also implying that some buildings are not structures). My two cents! 81.157.197.235 (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC).
 * I've moved all of the articles and changed the TBSW template. It seems that the lists that were named with buildings and structures (the list of tallest buildings and structures in Japan would be a good example) were named such because they contain separate lists for buildings and structures. The word structure is used in many of these articles to define a nonbuilding structure, as you mentioned above, so I'll probably need to go around rewording these parts also. Now there's just the matter of the new name for this article... I'm beginning a discussion at the WikiProject to gain more interest. -- timsdad  (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Make sure you do change everything relevant. You've undertaken a lot here on the basis of a discussion with an IP, so don't forget to finish what you started.  Oreo Priest  talk 04:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thinking about this again, I don't suppose it would be easier and more user-friendly just to have one set of country/region-specific articles, would it? That is, scrap the "List of tallest buildings in " versus "List of tallest structures in " article divide, and put everything we have about each region/country into one article, subdivided into separate lists where applicable, of course. Just a thought... it may not make sense. 81.129.130.117 (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC) ... However, if the "buildings" versus "all structures" article divide is to be retained then there are a some anomalous articles, such as List of tallest structures in Sri Lanka, which ought to be split into "structures" and "buildings" articles. I haven't been through them all, so there may be other examples. 81.129.130.117 (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the countries listed in the TBSW template have only one list (buildings or structures), only a few have both: Australia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, India, Norway, Poland, Romania, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. If we were to do as you suggested and merge the articles to one article per country, we would first need to create the missing lists or add the missing information afterwards. -- timsdad  (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Another problem is the population of the lists. If you take a look at List of tallest structures in the world by country an the comments on its talk page, you will note that I am not the only one to suggest some "rules" for a structure to be included in the article (I held off on my proposed reorganisation of that article when I noticed this discussion).  Perhaps a similar and consistant set of rules should be set for any other lists in the scope of this discussion.  Astronaut (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, I see what you mean. With the list by country, we should definitely limit to the top 10 at the most and none shorter than 100 metres. As for the lists by country, there cannot really be a height limit as lots of countries have very little tall structures (similar to attempting to define a "skyscraper" by height). -- timsdad  (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * [Response to Timsdad's post starting "The majority of countries]. I realise that not all countries currently have all possible lists, but that doesn't matter provided a generic title can be devised. We wouldn't need to create any missing lists right now, they can just be created over time as editors have the time and inclination. As I see it, the advantages of having one generically-titled article per country/region are twofold. First, the reader who is interested in "tall things" in a particular country doesn't need to be concerned about whether there might be a "buildings" article, a "structures" article, or both, or wonder whether there might potentially be a "towers" article, a "masts" article and so on and so forth. Secondly, editors don't need to worry about where to put their lists, and don't need to worry about whether a proliferation or duplication of articles for one country should all be merged in one article. Everything for one country or region will be in one place in a consistently named article. I'm guessing, but I think this might have actually been the original intention of the present structure, with, eventually (when all lists had been created), all countries having just one article called "buildings and structures", but then that idea got muddled up due to confusion over what that article title actually meant. 86.134.9.89 (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

Newest Proposed Tallest Building in the World
My project please check it out and reply on site, http://www.miapolislp.com/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.89.0 (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I made it clickable since it's not spam. Good job; get to work on it. I've got some bricks laying around I'll give ya. Daniel Christensen (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Great Idea, but unfortuantely America has Aviation Laws that restrict building skyscrapers over 2,000 feet, so you can't technically build that in America since it would be illegal, but you could build it somewhere like Dubai if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.234.78 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Tashkent Tower Missing from List
Hello, I thought I would point out that the Tashkent TV tower, located in Tashkent Uzbekistan, is missing from the list. It stands at 375 meters which puts it right up there with the tallest structures in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.26.158 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Tashkent Tower is not the tallest tower of its type in the World. The CN Tower is considerably taller.  Astronaut (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Trump Chicago omitted?
I looked as the list of tallest buildings and noted that the Trump Chicago is not included. I believe it is around 360 metres high...

Charles Stevens, January 5, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.140.4 (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Trump International Hotel and Tower is not the tallest skyscraper in the World. The Burj Khalifa is over 1,300 ft taller.  Astronaut (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Trump Chicago may not be taller than Burj Kalifa, but it ought to be on the list. Rick lightburn (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This means that it has no place on the list. Only the tallest structure in each category is included. -- timsdad  (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ostankino Tower
Hi! I wonder why Ostankino Tower is not included in the list?--Dojarca (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Being in the same category as the CN Tower, the Ostakino Tower doesn't qualify as it's some 13 metres shorter. -- timsdad  (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, it includes only one building in each category. This is not evident.--Dojarca (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't evident enough to editors with the very visible message Astronaut placed there to stop people adding other structures, I have made a note in the article text itself. -- timsdad  (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Does the CTBUH need to "ratify" data?
In the "History of record holders in each CTBUH category" section, an IP/anon editor raised the question of whether the Burj Khalifa's records need to be ratified. I've reverted that for now, but does someone know the answer? Astronaut (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * CTBUH normally ratifies all records after going receiving official architectural drawings. Obviously the BK is the tallest building [by a large margin] but it is probably more appropriate to wait until it is ratified before listing it in the record holders section. See http://www.ctbuh.org/NewsMedia/BurjDubaiOfficialOpening/tabid/1349/language/en-GB/Default.aspx 76.65.20.46 (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that we need to wait for the CTBUH to "ratify" it. I've raised this in this discussion. -- timsdad  (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, I dont think we need to wait but a footnote beside the entry saying that the height has not been ratified would not be out of place 76.65.20.46 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Coordinates
I see this recent edit added a column of geo-coordinates to the tables in this article. I am unsure whether this is a good idea. I think the coordinates clutter the tables, and the added information is not really necessary since the location is usually in the articles for the individual buildings or structures. On the other hand, the addition of the GeoGroupTemplate gives readers the ability to plot all the listed buildings or structures on a map - someone might find that useful, though I don't. Opinions? Astronaut (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

height discrepancy
Is the Burj Khalifa 2,717 ft (818m) tall, as per the Burj Khalifa article, or 2,720 ft (same 818m) as per the table on the List of tallest buildings and structures in the world? Dogears (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is neither. Burj Khalifa is 828.0 m, just like it says in the article.  Rounding to 3 significant figures accounted for what you saw (2,717 rounded to 3 significant figures is 2,720).  Astronaut (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I've fixed this apparent discrepancy. Astronaut (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Willis tower not included
I'm not good with this editing stuff, but the list of tallest structures does not include the Willis tower (formally sears tower) in Chicago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.220.111 (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Willis Tower is a skyscraper, but it is not the tallest skyscraper in the world. Therefore it doesn't get listed in this article.  The article title, text in the article, and a note to editors all make the criteria for inclusion in the list clear. Astronaut (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Information available about towers - is this relevant anyway?
The third paragraph of this article states, "There are dozens of radio and television broadcasting towers which measure over 600 metres (about 2,000 ft) in height, and only the tallest are recorded in publicly available information sources." I propose removing the entire sentence/paragraph, or at least the second clause, for two reasons: first, it's irrelevant whether or not broadcasting tower heights are available in publicly available information sources, since this is an article about the tallest, not towers that are at least 24 positions below the tallest, and second it's a factual statement that is not accurate. Aviation charts show the precise location and height of every tower; in addition, in the United States and probably elsewhere in the world, the heights of these towers is most definitely a matter of public record through building permits and local and federal licensing rules, among other sources. --Like2fly (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the double post of this comment.
 * I think the point that is being made (or at least trying to be made) is that with the record at or near the limit, it might be that several masts could compete for the title of "tallest". However, I do see your point; particularly that about the second clause.  Feel free to remove it, or better still improve the wording so it makes more sense.
 * I also note that in the table there are several structures that are minor variants on the tall mast theme: "Guyed Mast", "Tower for scientific research" (which is a guyed mast holding aloft a nuclear reactor), "Mast radiator" (another guyed mast), and "Guyed tubular steel mast" (yet another guyed mast, but made of tubular steel - I wonder what the others are made of and is it relevant?). Astronaut (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't the world trade centre included in destroyed structures?
It doesn't exist anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.102.234 (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The section lists "Tallest destroyed structures by category, not surpassed by existing structures". Since the World Trade Center towers were overtaken as the world's tallest skyscraper by the Petronas Towers in 1998 or by the Sears Tower in 2000 (depending on how you want to measure these things), it doesn't get listed here.  The progression in World's tallest skyscrapers is explained in the History of record holders in each CTBUH category section.  Astronaut (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Any idea why Imperial Towers in Mumbai, India cannot be included?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_India Santhoshxtra (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)santhoshxtra
 * Because at 249 m, The Imperial, Mumbai is considerably shorter than the world's tallest skyscraper, the 828 m Burj Khalifa. This list is only for buildings and structures that are the world's tallest.  Such has been repeatedly made clear here on the talk page (or its archives), in the article text and in in-line comments hidden within the text.  Astronaut (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Anon comment
While reading this article I noticed the location of the CN Tower as Toronto Canada. This is incorrect. The location of the CN Tower is Toronto Ontario Canada.--Anonymous IP
 * It is not a requirement to give provinces unless it is needed for specificity. Many countries have provinces but you do not usually mention them when discussing cities internationally.--Jorfer (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy?
Why are there two entries for "concrete tower" in the "tallest structure by category" when it isn't a tie? Shouldn't the CN Tower be removed from that list, or am I just missing something? (Maybe an honorable mention or civic pride or something)? --Antigrandiose (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Since Canton Tower opened, CN Tower is no longer the tallest tower.  I removed CN Tower's listing and  removed the words 'topped out' from Canton Tower's listing.  Astronaut (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Tashkent tower
Somebody please add the Tashkent tower in Tashkent, Uzbekistan to this list. At 375m it was clearly an oversight (no pun intended) in being left off the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.236.216.162 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I separated your new comment from the others under its own section and moved it to the end per normal talk page convention.
 * It is no oversight that it was left off the list. At only 375 m tall Tashkent Tower is nowhere near the tallest structure of its kind in the world - the Tashkent Tower article even says it was "...the 3rd tallest tower in the world from 1985 to 1991".  As I have said many times before: the article title, text in the article, and a note to editors all make the criteria for inclusion in the list clear.  Astronaut (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

St Louis
Caution there is some very wrong information on this article, for example the St.Louis arch is not included and it is the tallest United States national monument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.122.8 (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2011
 * You shouldn't plonk your new comment into the middle of an unrelated discussion about the height of Burj Khalifa. Instead I have moved your comment to the foot of the page per normal talk page convention and converted your all uppercase to normal letters so it didn't seem like your were shouting. Astronaut (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You probably didn't notice the Gateway Arch in St. louis is already listed as the world's tallest monument. It is even taller then all those inferior foreign monuments, so saying "United States national monument" is not really necessary.  Astronaut (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for  —Nileshb2b (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't say which coordinates you believe are incorrect (unless you mean the invalid category you added). Astronaut (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * . Apparently relates to this mistaken edit. Deor (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Belmont
Moved this new question to be at the bottom per normal talk page convention. Astronaut (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Belmont transmitting station is a broadcasting and telecommunications facility, situated next to the B1225, one mile west of the village of Donington on Bain, near Market Rasen and Louth in Lincolnshire, England (grid reference TF217837). It is owned and operated by Arqiva. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.112.85 (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2011
 * If you are asking why Belmont transmitting station is not included in the list, that is because at only 351 m tall it is considerably shorter than the world's tallest guyed mast, the 629 m tall KVLY-TV mast. Do I really have to repeat the inclusion criteria for this article yet again...  the answer is in several of the other discussions on this page, including the one in which you originally stuck this unrelated question.  Astronaut (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Graph of the tallest buildings throughout history
I have made a rudimentary graph of the historical data from the main article.

I was curious whether there was something like Moore's law for tall buildings, and I couldn't find anything elsewhere on the internet.

Does anyone think that a graph of this kind should be in the main article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Errorcode100 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe a graph is a good idea but, sorry, just not that one. I imagine the two logarithmic scales would be particularly confusing for most readers and the idea of "years ago" rather then the "year" would make it quickly out of date.  Why not try a graph with linear scales starting at 0 metres high and the year 1 AD?  Astronaut (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair criticism - that's why I referred to it as "rudimentary". Here is a slightly improved version - I've made the years scale linear and labelled it with dates rather than "years ago". The nature of the data (and the formulation of Moore's law) suggest the height scale should be logarithmic.


 * And is there a Moore's law equivalent for this data? Perhaps. Since 1800 we have seen the tallest building's height double approximately every 80 years....projecting forward, this implies that in around 500 years we'll be building spacescrapers! I'm not convinced there's much truth in that, but now I know the answer to my question.  Perhaps someone else is willing to make a prettier looking graph? --Errorcode100 (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Tell Qaramel
The recent addition of Tell Qaramel to the list of tallest structures in history is interesting. However, I have my doubt about it being listed in this article. While I am OK with the Tell Qaramel article's sourcing, this is a recent discovery and so far the only tower of that age. Therefore, how can it be said that it was the tallest of that era? Incidentally, I have similar reservations about the listing of the Tower of Jericho in the same list. Astronaut (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Taipei 101
Is Taipei 101 missing or does it not qualify.94.1.6.78 (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned at least 10 times in this article, what section are you talk about? -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 19:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If I may speculate, I believe 94.1.6.78 is asking why Taipei 101 is not in the first list, the 'Tallest structure by category'? Once again this is a question about the inclusion criteria which I have (repeatedly) made clear here on the talk page, in the article text itself and in a very prominent note to editors just before that list (when viewed in edit mode).  See the FAQ at the top of this page.  Astronaut (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Tallest Obelisk
The San Jacinto Monument is currently listed by the article as the world's tallest obelisk, but it is my understanding that it does not fit the requirements to actually be considered a true obelisk, what with it having more than four faces and not being topped by a pyramidal structure. The article about the monument refers to it simply as a "column." I believe the Washington Monument, though a bit shorter than the San Jacinto Monument, may be the rightful holder of the title.--96.246.28.197 (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The San Jacinto Monument is listed on Obelisk. The question of it being an obelisk was raised in 2006 and got no replies; while this question also from 2006 got one (negative) reply.  I would say, there is for now no actual consensus.  However, if San Jacinto was ruled to not be an obelisk, the next tallest could be the Juche Tower in Pyongyang, North Korea (which is about 2 ft taller than the Washington Monument).  It has four sides but then again you could argue the top is still too ornate for it to be an obelisk.  Astronaut (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Tallest Wooden Structure
I thought that the Trestle at Kirtland Air Force Base was the tallest (and largest) wooden structure. It is ~600ft tall and spans nearly two football fields. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS-I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.117.70 (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems you are correct. I updated this article.  Astronaut (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Tallest Observation deck
The Burj Khalifa's observation deck, although half outside, has a half inside and therefore should be added to the table, and not in the notes.
 * Sorry, but no; this list is only for the world's tallest. Burj Khalifa has never had the world's tallest observation deck, but being the world's tallest building and having the world's tallest outdoor obsertvation deck is worthy of an honourable mention in the notes.  Astronaut (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates
(Note: this section was moved by User:Mercy11 from User_talk:Mercy11, where it was titled "Tallest buildings and structures in the world")

Thank you for this edit to List of tallest buildings and structures in the world. Yes, the world's tallest building should be shown in this article. However, the photo is used under a claim of "fair use" (like almost all photos of buildings in UAE which doesn't have a freedom of panorama law). As such, File:Burj Khalifa building.jpg will need to have a "Non-free media use rationale" added for the List of tallest buildings and structures in the world. Without it, you can be pretty sure someone will come by and remove the image again - or worse still, delete the image itself claiming it is being misused! Astronaut (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * While the wikilawyers make their case, its presence in this article is clearly beneficial to readers, and I have added the necessary entry to the photo file to account for its presence in this article. Regards. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Troll A Platform at 472 meters from the seabed worth mentioning?
Would it make sense to allow an entry for the Troll_A_platform as the tallest structure ever moved? Not sure how it fits in with the categories or whether it would require one of its own. DI (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The general consensus is that partially submerged structures (whether standing on the sea bed, supported by water, or a tension-leg type structure) will only have their above sea-level height counted (169 m in the case of Troll A). Troll A is not even the tallest of this type of structure anyway.  Astronaut (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WIMZ FM radio tower, Knoxville TN
I think this tower might hold the record from 1963 to 1967. It has its own Wiki article.98.94.223.175 (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Phil Sweet
 * Being a guyed mast, the WIMZ-FM-Tower is already listed in the List of tallest buildings and structures in the world as holding the record in 1963 until the completion of the KVLY-TV mast on 13 August 1963. Investigating further, the WIMZ-FM-Tower article says the mast wasn't completed until September 1963.  Something is wrong somewhere that warrants further investigation - maybe WIMZ never was the world's tallest.  Astronaut (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Milad_Tower
Hi

Please in " List of tallest buildings and structures in the world (new section)" consider the contents of the following link.

Regards, K. Bayatmakoo

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milad_Tower — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.66.206.177 (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"Debate over definitions" section
Not entirely sure this section should be in the article - shouldn't it be agreed here and the scope of the article clarified if necessary. I don't come to an encyclopedia expecting to be confused or having to make my own mind up. As it's entirely unreferenced (ie where is this debate acknowledged to exist), I also consider it - at best - original research. Halsteadk (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sky City
Does the Sky City belong in the "Under construction and on-hold" section? --109.67.64.231 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither. According to reliable sources CTBUH and Emporis is is still a proposal.  However, usual measure of starting construction - a groundbreaking ceremony - might not be appropriate in the case of Sky City.  If prefabrication of the components has started, and you can find a reliable source which says that, you might be able to make a case for saying construction has started.  And then it could be added to the section.  Astronaut (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)