Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Tallest Manmade object

The Burj Khalifa is erroneously listed as the tallest manmade object. It should be labeled as the tallest manmade object currently standing. LiftPort constructed a temporary 1600 meter tall tethered tower six years ago. Further, there should be notice of the tethered tower being the tallest thing that humanity has made to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfyredragon (talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Starfyredragon. Just so you know from now on, we here at Wikipedia are used to seeing new talk page topics placed at the bottom of the page, so that is why I moved it. Also please be so kind to sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of you message. This helps all of us keep track of who is saying what. Thanks.

As for the issue itself. I am not completely opposed to mentioning the tethered object but if someone wants to state Burj Khalifa is the tallest man-made structure ever built, I would have a hard time refuting that based on the temporary existence of an object that amounted to little more than a "ribbon" tied to a balloon. Just my opinion, interested to see what other editors have to say. Thank you for raising this to our attention. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest a good place to mention the tether object would be in 'Tallest structures' section in this article, where it talks about offshore platform "heights". I am planning on reverting your changes made so far until we can discuss it more here. See WP:BRD. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The tether was freestanding, and there was a platform at the top for observational equipment. The major difference between the tethered tower and a normal tower, other than its temporary nature, was that it was an active structure rather than a static structure. (The difference being a static structure needs no maintenance to maintain its height, while an active structure requires some active system to maintain.) In the case of the tethered towers, it was atmospheric balloons. In the case of skyscrapers, proposed plans for taller buildings will require air fins to keep wind from causing them to topple. I, for one, don't having a problem refuting that something is the tallest man-made object is ever built if there was a taller man-made object built. True, a balloon on a tether (although calling the HALE experiment little more than a ribbon tied to a balloon is like calling the Titanic as little more than a boat) doesn't SOUND as impressive (even if it's using advanced nano-materials and advanced atmospheric equipment and included several breakthroughs of science) when compared to a massive building. But fair's fair, and if a radio tower can hold the title for years, a feat of modern macroscopically applied nanotech for the purpose of preparing to build the biggest structure the Earth will ever be able to have should account for something.

Starfyredragon (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Reason for history removal?

Afew months back I added some entries to the history section of this article (for the record holding buildings/stuctures through time) for some of the earliest manmade structures such as; Tell Qaramel, The Tower of Jericho, Tumulus of St. Micheal and so on after much research and beliving each entry to be the tallest in the world (at least that has been descoverd through archeology) and all these entries fulfilled each criterian for being a record holder. It has come to my attention that a littel while ago all entries prior to the Step Pyramid of Djoser have been removed. I am just curious as to the reason for the removal, for if there is a legitimate reason I would be satisfied just with hearing it, or if the removal was a mistake then I would be glad to re-edit the portion of the article that I edited before. Emperor100000 (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a mistake - I removed them in this edit for the reason stated in the edit summary. The White Temple in Uruk doesn't have an article, but the articles for Tell Qaramel, Tower of Jericho, Saint-Michel tumulus, and La Hougue Bie don't provide any evidence in reliable sources that these structures were the tallest at a particular date in history. Indeed, with the vague wording used in all of these articles about their ages ("carbon-dated to between the eleventh millennium and 9650 BC", "built ... around 8000 BCE", "the largest grave mound in continental Europe" and "...in use around 3500 BC"), how can you put dates to the time when the "record" of world's tallest moved from one to the other. At least the Egyptians kept some written records so archeologists can cross check with carbon dating (which is only accurate to about ±40 years anyway). Not only that, but how can you tell that any of these were ever the tallest structure in the World? The Tower of Jericho might have been the tallest in Jericho, or the tallest in the Middle East at some time around 6000 BC, but the tallest in the World? The evidence available in Wikipedia is scant at best, and without better sourcing adding them to this list is quite possibly original research. Astronaut (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

list of tallest buildings.

You missed out Blackpool Tower( seaside resort nw England).Its 518ft tall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.188.24 (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

At only 158 m tall, it is 476 m shorter than the tallest in its category. It is correctly listed in List of tallest towers in the world - a long way down the page. Astronaut (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Tallest dam

The tallest dam is actually Jinping-I Dam not Nurek dam. Robert4565 (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bring this to attention. I've updated the list and removed the near duplicate category of 'concrete dam'. Astronaut (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

World Trade towers hit by planes "allegedly" hijacked and "allegedly" causing them to collapse????????!?

Skyscraper World Trade Center United States New York 526.3 1,727 40°42′42″N 74°00′45″W "On September 11, 2001, terrorists allegedly hijacked 4 planes, two of which were crashed into the twin towers, catching the towers on fire and allegedly causing them to collapse onto themselves"

A bizarre place to insert your fringe politics. FOX news special, or YouTube blather, sure; no place in an "allegedly" dispassionate encyclopedia entry.

Westcider (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yikes, that was added yesterday by an IP. I just reverted it; thanks for catching it. Reywas92^Talk 04:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Jsm11482 (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC) We don't actually "know" what happened, other than what the US Gov't has told us - I think "allegedly" is perfectly reasonable here.

Missing content - History of record holders in each CTBUH category

Jsm11482 (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC) The table is all messed up and content is duplicated/missing.

The table in "History of record holders in each CTBUH category" attempts to show how different measurements methods affects which building is the tallest. This can be a little confusing, so in order to reduce the confusion, the CTBUH has refined the way in which it assesses the height and removed the "height to roof" altogether. Please can you explain what content is "duplicated/missing"? I see nothing wrong with the table. Astronaut (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol, really?

It is funny how things change drastically when Arabs flex their muscles and enter world records and start competing! I mean, with our Burj Khalifah, in our beloved Dubai, holding the world record for tallest "everything", people started dissecting and categorizing high structures!! So that they can "retain" some sort of "face water" while seeing Arabs, rather than strengthening stereotype images of suicide bombers, building "high" and "high-class" cosmopolitans metropolises! All I have to say, keep categorizing your shit, we will sill beat you and build higher sky scrapers, buildings, towers, structures, free-standing structures, wired ass structures, balarina dancing structures, and Oh-So-Japanese-Hello-Ketty-pointing anntana high-tea-house.. high everything! Try your best, you will still be defeated! Funny people.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.51.78.63 (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2014‎

The "dissecting and categorizing" started long before the Burj Khalifa was built. Since the 1930's there has been rivalry and allegations of cheating such as adding non-architectural elements like antennas to get one over a rival project. A notable example was the rivalry between the Sears Tower and the World Trade Center: while both building's top floors were at almost the same height, the Sears Tower had a higher roof; in 1978 the World Trade Center added a tall antenna to the south tower; and four years later the Sears Tower added its own antenna. And then along came Malaysia's Petronas Towers in 1998, adding tall architectural spires to a building with a much lower roof than the Sears Tower. It is only in quite recent years that Arab countries have sought to compete, perhaps starting with Dubai's Burj Al Arab in 1999. Astronaut (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

In the last few thousand years the Arabs haven't given much to the World. They happened to be born on top of oil. It's the Americans who have made them rich. All the so called arab muscle flexing is knowing how to spend money that they earned selling resources. In fact the sky scrappers design and engineering in the Arab World have very little to do with Arabs. Luckily not all Arab people are dumb like you, so I'm sure they will figure something smart out for when the oil runs out. Might also add that at a total cost of 1.5 billion when its rival buildings around the world which are shorter have cost more than double that shows that you people charge first world prices and pay third world salaries. Bravo, standing ovation everyone.

Tower vs building vs skyscraper

See discussion at Talk:Tower#Tower vs building vs skyscraper jnestorius^(talk) 17:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Henninger Turm has been demolished

According to the Wikipedia article on the subject, the Henninger Turm was demolished in 2013 and will be replaced by a residential building. Therefore, shouldn't the tallest storage structure now be considered the Schapfen Mill Tower, and the Henninger Turm moved to the destroyed/demolished category? Tosus (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Astronaut (talk) 11:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Template produces poor PDF (print) output

PDF output using Google Chrome's built-in distiller produces poor results with this page. (Use the Ctrl P command in Chrome to preview). Issue may be with the template used or (more likely) the the way content was entered (coded) into the template and saved by the contributor. For example, when printing this article with Google's PDF printer, the font size is scaled down too much. Note that the font size should not dynamically scale up or down to fit a page; font size of the main-body text content should be about 12 points on outputted PDF page(s); it is the images and table cells that should dynamically scale up or down to fit the info box and template in order to maintain the two-column Wikipedia layout. The offending elements appear to be caused by the separation of the tables and images. Refer to this Wikipedia (list-type) article for a proper printer-friendly layout using tables with images -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_German_Navy_ships Printchecker (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect use of term "World Trade Center"

Don't have time to fix this right now, but there are a number of instances in the article where the term is used interchangeably with Towers One and Two. The "World Trade Center" is a complex of buildings, and official use - and colloquial use among people who always knew this - reflects this. E.g., the downtown terminus of E train service continued to be called "World Trade Center" after September 11th : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambers_Street_–_World_Trade_Center_/_Park_Place_(New_York_City_Subway) Tothebarricades (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

sorting doesn't work right.

The chart Tallest Historical Structures has the usual sorting triangles, but they don't work right because "c." gums up the works.Kdammers (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not just the "c." that's the problem. Even without it, it wouldn't be able to sort BC and AD dates in order. Squinge (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Where is Nasinneula

Nasinneula (Finland) is 160m. Why it isn't in the list.

In which category is it the tallest? Squinge (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2015 (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 13:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

cn tower? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.129.244 (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Willis/Sears

The Willis tower is the name used to refer to the former Sears tower in this article. How-ever, at the times referred to, it was called the Sears tower. With cities and countries, Wikipedia uses the name current at the time of the event or condition being discussed. Shouldn't structures be tgreated the same way? Kdammers (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)!

Can we delete the Rank column?

The "rank" column in some tables is manually maintained, meaning that if you need to insert a building, you have to manually edit all subsequent ranks, which is really annoying. Other pages like List of tallest freestanding structures in the world don't bother with a rank column in their tables.

-- 67.188.43.135 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

St. Mary's Church, Stralsund

The article for St. Mary's Church states that it was built "some time before 1298," which would seem (unless its spire is of a later date) to make it the tallest structure for some time prior to the construction of the spire at Lincoln Cathedral. The article on Lincoln Cathedral states, "Between 1307 and 1311 the central tower was raised to its present height of 271 feet (83 m)." Also, the article on St. Mary's Church states that it was the highest structure from 1625, contradicting this list's date of 1549. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.130.33.112 (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Göbekli Tepe

Göbekli Tepe is listed as being the tallest building for thousands of years when it was destroyed well before this period ended. This should be amended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.65.250 (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, as it buried under earth of the hilltop around 7500BC it can't be counted as holding the record after that time (since it's a ruin, and no longer a structure above ground). This brings up a interesting quandary on weather it can be entered onto this list at all as it is a ruin, not a standing building, and it cannot be entered into. Also there have been a number of structures built since and before the Step Pyramid of Djoser that do not yet appear on this list for whatever reason such as The Tower of Jericoh, and several Dolmen/Passage Graves, so Göbekli Tepe could not possibly have held the record for nearly 7000 years if it even held it at all. There are also a number of fallacies in the data for Göbekli Tepe in this list. It is shown as being built in 11,500BC, but all the researchers whose material I have read on this site agree that the earliest range of construction of the first tier is about 9600 BC - 9100 BC (see the main article for Göbekli Tepe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe) or these other sources: (http://gobeklitepe.info/ , http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-temple-83613665/) Also the list shows the height as being 15 meters, this contradicts all the sources I have listed that state the heights of the tallest stone pillars being about 6 meters, a substantial difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.92.172.57 (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Centralized page move discussion

There is a centralized discussion about whether or not to remove "in the world" from this and roughly fifteen other articles.

Please comment here: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 52#Global superlatives

Thank you,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This article fails to mention the radio tower at Cusseta, GA. It stands 1,315 feet AGL. (Atlanta Sectional Aeronautical Chart 73rd edition) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejdeal (talk • contribs) 16:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Tallest single family homes

Robynthehode, you removed the section I added on the tallest single family homes without any explanation. It seems entirely appropriate to me to be included here as these are a type of building or structure not covered elsewhere in the article. Please explain your reasoning. MB 14:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your query to the talk page. Sorry for the lack of explanation for my deletion of the content. I pressed the 'save changes' before I meant to and had not time to then come here to explain before now. As to the inclusion of this information, you have provided no reliable verifiable sources for this inclusion. I have serious doubts about its notability and veracity. If you can provide correct sources then it may have a minimal place in this article but not to the extent that was previously included Robynthehode (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Robynthehode, The sources are in the linked articles. I considered what I put here a short lead summary or list-type entry - both of which usually don't require refs if the refs are included in the target articles. MB 00:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I still cannot find any references to the buildings being the tallest of their kind. In the article for Antilia as far as I could see there is no mention that it is the tallest in the world, only a mention of its height. If there is no external reference to that it is the tallest then any inclusion in this article is original research. Furthermore the articles structure is such that each type of 'tallest building' is in the main list and does not have paragraph detail included. To do so for all types of tallest building would make the list unwieldy and transform it from a list style article to a descriptive article. Robynthehode (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Robynthehode, here is a link [1] that is a ref in Falcon Nest that says Falcon Nest claims to be the tallest house in the world, but the tallest is really Antilia (building). It's not OR. You're right that there is no mention in Antilia of it being the tallest - I will add that into the article. Not sure what you mean by "paragraph" detail, all I added 1-2 sentences that could go into a Remarks column if a table were used instead. A table would be consistent with the rest of the article, I didn't want to go to the trouble of making one without testing if anyone objected to this info being in the article first. MB 02:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Still inline references are needed. Agree with Robynthehode, that better is to add it to main list rather than creating separate section.Jklamo (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Reference looks good but the entry should be part of the list rather than in a separate section. The amount of detail you included in the original edit does not need to be included just the relevant information as per the table. Using 'Single family home' as the title for the type of entry would be fine as this is used in the source and is sufficiently descriptive. If you want to go ahead and include in the table list as per my suggestion I have no objections although you might want to wait to see in any other editors want to comment, disagree or agree with what I have said Robynthehode (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like you are proposing adding just Antilia into the table as tallest 'Single family home'. Though that may be technically accurate since it is a private home, it includes room for a staff of 600. Which is why others give the title to Falcon Nest, since it is designed for only a family and is much closer to the definition of SFH most people would probably think of. I added a new section to be able to explain this - just adding Antilia to the table leaves a big hole. Since I haven't found any other coverage of the subject (like a list beyond these two), I didn't think a separate article on Tallest SFHs was warranted. Any suggestion? Maybe add Antilla to the table with a footnote discussing the two ways to count tallest SFO? Or adding two categories (i.e. SFH with staff quarters & SFH without staff quarters)? MB 16:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The decision of what to include or exclude is all about the sources. The previous source you gave stated that Antilia is the tallest but makes no mention of staff accommodation or the fact that this house also seems to have a business function as per this source [2]. It is not up to us as editors to analyse the sources beyond whether the information in the sources is accurate, NPOV, and supports the text in the list or article. Wikipedia advice at Conflicting sources doesn't seem to give clear advice in this case (except for the criteria already stated) because the definition of the type of building is one that is currently only in the sources stated and is not clear on whether to include staff accommodation or not. I think it is probably up to us as editors to make a decision (by consensus) as to which building should be the main one and maybe include the other one, as you suggest, in the notes. Including both in the main list may be too much. Robynthehode (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Riga Radio and TV Tower

How about the Riga's Radio and TV Tower? It's 368 m (1,207 ft) high but this tower is not in the list. Wiki page about the tower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latvietis4216 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Riga Radio and TV Tower doesn't fit in any of the lists. It is not tall enough to be included in list of towers for this article (it is in tallest towers article though). It is also not appropriate in the main list because each category should have only one representative member (the tallest) and as Riga Tower is not the tallest self supporting tower it doesn't belong there either. If you have a reason why it should be included please state it here Robynthehode (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tallest buildings and structures. 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/20101225004217/http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/tp/wo/ to http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/tp/wo/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Forgotten building in Thailand.

Hi, think you have forgotten the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baiyoke_Tower_II in Thailand. It is around 300 meter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.8.116 (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

No this building has not been forgotten. It just isn't appropriate for this article. It is also now too short for the main tallest building article as that article has a lower limit of 350m for inclusion Robynthehode (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Jetavanaramaya, Sri Lanka

Jetavanaramaya Stupa was over 138 meters when built and now is 122 meters. There's a wiki page for this as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jetavanaramaya. Can this please be included in the list of tallest buildings. Sumedha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.103.180 (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Observation deck of Shanghai Tower

I visited "Shanghai Tower" September 2017, and have a pamphlet which confirms the highest public observation deck is level 118/119, thus confirming that the Burj is still the highest observation deck in the world. However I didn't feel I could upload this as proof/reference image (i.e. I don't own the image/material). As such my edit has been reverted as "original research". I could not find this information on any website. What do users suggest? If a tree falls in a forest, and someone witnesses it first hand but there's not a website confirming it... I guess another tack could be to undo the change from whoever added Shanghai Tower as the highest observation deck, as that too does not have a valid reference. Thanks for patience (new to Wiki edits) SiDawg (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Breetsky?

This sentence appears in the first paragraph of the article: "Breetsky was the third building, which was surpassed by Tokyo in 1987."

I can't find any coherent reference to anything called Breetsky, and the Tokyo reference doesn't make any sense to me, since the Skytree was erected in 2010. So what does this sentence mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:480:1CE0:D595:4446:2B53:63C9 (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's vandalism. Seeing as it's unsourced I decided to WP:BEBOLD and revert it. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Milad Tower

It's very weired and wonderful why we don't see the Milad Tower in this list. The tower is tallest in Iran and among the three tallest in the middle east. Please someone add this tower to the list.--5.115.228.11 (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Milad Tower is not in the list because the entries are the tallest example of the specific category. Milad Tower is in the List of tallest towers.Robynthehode (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought this article is about comparing the tallest structures of any kind. By the way, Mild Tower is taller than many structures in the article. It would be better if we also had this structure there. Thanks a lot.--5.115.76.63 (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the criteria for this article. The first table lists building categories next to which are the tallest example of that category. It does not list examples that are not the tallest. Therefore the Milad tower, which is not the tallest tower in the world, does not belong on this list. The tallest tower as stated is the Tokyo Skytree. The later tables also have specific critera which the Milad tower does not match so doesn't belong in those lists either. Does that help? Robynthehode (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The Milad Tower is not the tallest in the world but, tall enough to be included in this list. With more than 350m is among top 7 towers in the world, and taller than the last 5 structures in this list. Please read the tower's article and add this tower to this list, please. Thank you very much.--5.115.76.63 (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

This list is for the tallest of the category it belongs to. That's it. I don't know what you not understanding about the criteria for inclusion. It doesn't included shorter structures. Milad tower is shown at List of tallest towers and won't be included on this list. It doesn't even qualify for inclusion in one of the later tables in the article. Any attempt to include it will be reverted because it doesn't belong according to the criteria of this list article. You can of course challenge this with WP:3O or WP:RFC if you want but you will find, I believe, that other editors will agree with me. Robynthehode (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Tallest structures in ancient history unsourced?

Joe Roe makes a good point here [3] that our suggestion that the Tower of Jericho was the world’s tallest structure for 4,000 years appears not to be supported by strong sources. The high profile nature of this article means that some news outlets and other websites have reproduced the claim, but again without sourcing. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)