Talk:List of tallest structures by country

Table
If we want to include just the tallest structure for each country, a table would probably be preferable to the current format (with one section per country).

As we already have sections, it could easily be expanded to include the tallest buildings and structures for each country (unless there are already separate lists/pages, as for the US e.g.).

-- User:Docu

nice layout
I think it's a bit ugly that you have to scroll down that much before the page starts. I don't know any alternative though. Anyone?

Evilbu 10:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the img (it's available elsewhere). -- User:Docu

Tallest Tower
The Petronas Twin Towers can´t be the second tallest building. If you count it with the Antenna/Spire (you have counted it in Taipei and Petronas) If you count the Roof (you have counted it in Sears) So please, check it and count the highest by the antenna or by the roof, but not twice at the same time
 * Sears Tower 527.3 m
 * Taipei 101 509.2 m
 * Petronas Twin Towers 452 m
 * Taipei 101 449.2 m
 * Sears Tower 442.3 m
 * Petronas Twin Towers 403 m

Reorganization needed
This article seems to be getting out-of-hand. There is just too much information. We need to either set a limit for how many buildings should be listed for each country, or set a height limit so that only buildings with notable heights are included. Also, to ensure that the information in the article is correct, we should add a source for every building included. This may take a while, but it will be worth it. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I'm in favour of setting the minimum height limit for buildings to be included in this list. Mhching (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, do you have any idea about what height that should be? Remember that the height we choose will determine whether some countries can stay in the list and which lists will be extremely long.  I do not want one country to have 300 entries while another only two.  I actually support setting a limit to the number of buildings in each country.  Then, if there are many buildings in a certain country and/or if they are notable, then a main list could be created and linked using Main article.
 * Also, it would be a good if we can strive for featured list status. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 01:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, but don't think a minimum height limit needs to be set. There are already loads of lists with minimum height restrictions and that would make this list nothing but a bloated, redundant version of those. What we need to do is grossly limit the number of structures per country. I'd say we cut it down all the way to just the single tallest freestanding structure in any given country, and organize it into a table like all the other tallest building topics. Legend Saber (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Two TV towers in the woods
You can call me cuckoo, but i don't believe, that these two towers exist:


 * Koeru TV Tower, 349 m (1,145 ft)
 * Valgjärve TV Tower, 347 m (1,138 ft)

(both are in Estonia)

Koeru is a small forest village, about Valgjärve I don't have any data --213.219.80.25 (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong link
The Westpoint tower in Tilburg, The Netherlands is linked to a acadamy in the US instead of the actual tower. I dont know how to change it, can someone else please do this? The link should be; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westpoint_Tower Thahx, Sam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ik889nl (talk • contribs) 13:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Title and content
If we compiled a list of the, say, 200 tallest buildings in the world, and sorted it by country, that would be a "List of tallest buildings and structures in the world by country". But what this list is a list of the tallest buildings in each country, many of which would not make it to the 200-list. It really only needs to mention the very tallest one in each country, not a whole selection of them. Sure, we might say colloquially that such and such a building is "among the tallest buildings in the USA", but everyone's idea of what constitutes the group of "tallest buildings in the USA" is subjective. Let's not give in to such subjectivity, but list only No. 1 for each country. If there's some debate about which building is No. 1 for any particular country, we can have a footnote explaining it.

My suggestion is "List of tallest buildings or structures by country". "Or" is better than "and", because only 1 item should qualify for any one country. There's no need to say "in the world", because, afaik, there are no extra-terrestrial buidings or structures. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Very good point, I would support renaming this article to something more appropriate but i think its useful for it to list several of the tallest buildings in each country rather than just the tallest. It would also be helpful if the article introduction also linked to List of tallest buildings in the world and List of tallest buildings and structures in the world


 * I think the title of the article should be something like List of tallest buildings in each country BritishWatcher (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I like that title. On the number of buildings listed for any one country, it's probably true that there are 500+ buildings in the USA that are taller than any building in Malta, or Chad, or the Seychelles.  Aren't we really only interested here in the absolute tallest in any one country, not a list of "very tall buildings"?  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see why a page just showing the tallest building in each country would be useful and it could also be presented in a nice sortable table so ud be able to see in order of the tallest as well as by alphabetical country. I just dont like the idea of losing so much data already entered on this article which could be useful to some people. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I share your concern about losing a lot of good information that a lot of users have put effort into tracking down. Many countries have a separate "List of tallest buildings in ", where all these extra details could go.  Is there any need to double up here?  Do we really need to list about 50 tall buildings in Mexico, and more like 75 in India (I haven’t counted them), in a list such as this?  Many of them are just "35 floors" etc, which gives only a rough guide as to their actual height.  Some are "under construction", which means they’re not quite "buildings" yet.  Some are even "on hold", meaning they may never become "buildings" at all.  I think we need some clearer idea of what defines a "building" for the purposes of this list, and imo anything that isn't completed would not qualify, yet.--  JackofOz (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not replying sooner, only just saw this message. I agree with you that uncomplete buildings and especially "proposed" buildings should not be included. I also agree those that simply state the number of stories should either have the correct height or not be included. The list for places like India certainly doesnt need to be as long as it is considering there is an entire article on it, like many other major countries. My concern is if just the tallest for each country was listed then alot of the data about the smaller countries which dont have an article would be lost and they certainly dont justify having an entire article for each.


 * However accuracy is more important than extensive data which does lack sources that people simply add random things to every so often. So i would support turning this into a table saying the tallest building / structure for each country (sovereign states / territories) which would be sortable. It could have a column for the links to the countries article on tallest buildings (if it had one). That would certainly clean up the article and make it more useful but it is a big change. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Changes
It has been discussed a couple of times before, but either nothing was done or more crap has been added since it was last reorganised. I propose setting limits on the number of entries per country and a minimum height - perhaps: a top 10 (or top 5 if the country has a separate list article or category) and a height limit of 100 m. All entries will also need to be complete or at least topped out.

Of course, some countries will disappear from the article, but not every country can be represented here otherwise we will be listing small huts on Pacific islands. Astronaut (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems no one objects to my proposal. Even so, I'll give it another week before I undertake this major edit.  Astronaut (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support this idea -- articles are being created on towers which are included here with notability implied based on inclusion on this list. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I propose that the "Madinat al-Hareer 'City of Silk'" structure of Kuwait should be removed from this list. The reason being that the structure is not complete; It is approved, but construction has not even begun yet. 108.50.173.120 (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of tallest bridges in the world which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Reorganising and Removing
This list is a real mess with no clear criteria for inclusion of entries to the list. I am going to be bold and start changing the list using the following criteria. 1. A maximum of 10 entries per country. 2. A minimum height of 100m 3. The structure must have been completed or topped out. No proposed or under construction structures to be included. 4. All entries must have verifiable height included not just number of floors or other similar descriptions. 5. All entries must be verifiable with either a linked Wikipedia article or link to a reliable source. 6. All structures are permitted including buildings, towers, guyed masts as per other Wikipedia articles on 'structures' Of course not every country will be included because of the preceding criteria but there has to be limits. If you disagree with any changes I make please discuss on the talk page first Robynthehode (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your attempt to be bold and constructive is appreciated. But, the criteria that you've defined, and undertaken the effort to change the article to reflect it, hasn't been discussed. What are the bases for this criteria? I've reverted your edits for now, until discussion has taken place. Rest assured that they're not lost, and can be restored. Since you haven't gotten responses here, I suggest seeking comments elsewhere, such as WP:Village. —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 18:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are we to limit the number of entries to ten? This is supposed to be a List of tallest structures in the world by country, so there would appear to be very little justification for arbitrarily capping the number of entries for each country at ten. Hayek79 (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In future can you try and get a consensus before making sweeping changes. Could you also check what changes have been made before reversing edits, you owe it to people who's time you're wasting otherwise. Hayek79 (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Already tried to get consensus by making notification as above. This was 6 months ago. No one bothered to make comment so I followed the allowable action of being bold. Make your argument here about WHY my changes shouldn't be done. Here is my reasoning: Max number - keeps list manageable and if more entries are required then separate article should be created (many countries already have such a list). Minimum height - again keeps list manageable. Completed structure - also keeps list manageable and stops additions that are planned, proposed, visionary (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Verifiable height is self explanatory - but enables comparison as the list is 'tallest'. Verifiability criteria is a core requirement of Wikipedia. Seems fair enough to me and in accord with many other articles on the same / similar subject. There were far too many entries that had no source and on monitoring the article over a period of 6 months additions were made that were non notable and not verifiable. Articles - including list articles don't need to include all possible entries or information. Before reverting my changes please make your argument here Robynthehode (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This just demonstrates that you didn't bother to check what changes I had made. With the exception of maximum number of entries per country (a change that you didn't actually make, and which I didn't therefore revert), I agree with your criteria, as I clearly stated above. The changes I made, which you should have checked, were as follows: expanded entries for the United Kingdom, expanded entries for several other sections where buildings formally listed as "under construction" were complete, removed all entries under 100m in height, removed the tables for the India and Vietnam sections so that the page had a consistent formatting and didn't look so messy. Since none of the objections you've raised seem to match the actual changes I made, I will undo your reversion later this afternoon unless you raise any objections, and then we can discuss the matter of limiting entries to 10. Hayek79 (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * EDIT: It appears I didn't make it clear that I was in broad agreement with the criteria you listed yesterday, apologies. If we are to make further changes I would prefer that they were made to my last edit at 00:10, 11 July 2016 so that I haven't lost all of the other changes that I made. Hayek79 (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts it might be an idea, given what a mess this page is, to delete it, since we already have a List of tallest buildings and structures Hayek79 (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying your position. I didn't check through all your changes as it looked at first glance that your changes merely reverted my original edits. Apologies. I don't agree with deleting this list article as it offers (or potentially offers) summary information that is not available elsewhere. The List of tallest buildings and structures does not categorise according to country but by absolute height. Country list articles are more in depth. So this list offers a summary overview where buildings / structures in countries can be compared. Happy to work on it with you or other editors to make it more accurate and manageable in size. Robynthehode (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorry about the confusion. I would be happy to expand entries for countries like the United States which only have a handful of buildings listed. Perhaps an entry limit of more than ten, say twenty or thirty, might be better. The reason I have problems with an entry limit is that developed countries will have dozens of very large structures that aren't listed, while rather un-outstanding and not especially tall buildings elsewhere would appear as entries. Hayek79 (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tallest structures by country. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313164108/http://konido.com/geography/what-is-the-tallest-building-of-vatican-city/ to http://konido.com/geography/what-is-the-tallest-building-of-vatican-city/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Formating
I think there should be a standardized format, as there is no consistency at all besides "100 m (328 ft)" and that's not always consistent, so I propose: the name of the building/structure, place, year completed, height m (height ft), other information. for example, the current tallest building would be: Burj Khalifa, Dubai, 2009, 828 m (2,717 ft), the tallest building in the world. please add suggestions, as I know this won't cover every situation, thank you for your time. ABSM 23 (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)