Template talk:Supertall

Discussions

I removed the Empire State Building from this template because it doens't really fit with the supertall template theme. Also, there are lots of buildings over 1000 feet, including all of these buildings: Category:Skyscrapers_over_350_meters and most of these Category:Skyscrapers between 300 and 349 meters. --Quasipalm 19:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC) Grr. I made an edit before, I guess it didn't work. Anyway, not including radio masts, there are only about twenty supertalls over 1000 feet: Burj Dubai Bank of America Tower, New York City Bank of China Tower CITIC Plaza Central Plaza, Hong Kong Emirates Office Tower Empire State Building Freedom Tower World Trade Center International Finance Centre Jin Mao Building Petronas Towers Millennium Tower Mars Tension-leg Platform Really probably shouldn't be on list, because nearly all oil platforms would be on list. Sears Tower Shanghai World Financial Center X-Seed 4000 Union Square Phase 7 Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) Taipei 101 Solar Tower Buronga Shun Hing Square Aon Center (Chicago) Bank of America Plaza (Atlanta) Burj al-Arab Federation Tower J.P. Morgan Chase Tower, Houston Kingdom Centre London Bridge Tower Menara Telekom Q1 (building) Trump International Hotel and Tower (Toronto) Tuntex Sky Tower Two Prudential Plaza Baiyoke Tower II Petronius Platform CN Tower Ostankino Tower Troll Platform Oriental Pearl Tower Borj-e Milad Menara Kuala Lumpur Fernsehturm Stratosphere Las Vegas Macau Tower Tokyo Tower Eiffel Tower Ryugyong Hotel Sky Central Plaza Chrysler Building Lakihegy Tower U.S. Bank Tower Bank of America Plaza (Atlanta)

Oh......ok your right --Ctrl build 21:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit strange to include buildings that will most likely never be built with buildings that are real or under construction? Seeing the Empire State Building next to Sky City 1000 strikes me as inappropriate. --Quasipalm 15:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the Mars Tension-leg Platform from this list because it once described "proposed" structures. The description has changed and I am removing it again because it still does not fall within the decription. It is not "self-supporting". As noted above, the template would be too long if it included supported structures (radio masts, oil platforms,etc.) - Ektar 20:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorting

Could some editor who knows more about these structures than I sort them in some sensible manner, e.g. by status (built or proposed), and within these categories by height? Right now it's just a huge block of marginally inviting text. Sandstein 11:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've divided it into categories. I'm sure some asshole who prefers an illegible list will revert it. --87.82.23.37 15:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Destroyed?

Bit odd to have as a subcategory. Skinnyweed 17:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Split?

This template is freaking huge. It would work just as well divided into several templates like "Supertall skyscrapers," "Proposed supertall skyscrapers," "Supertall oil platforms," etc. Recury 16:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd support that. When I started watching this template some months back it was less than half the length it is now. Perhaps it could exist as separate templates with all of them pointing back to a "List of ..." page that has a combined list. --StuffOfInterest 17:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to say, there needs to be a list if you're going to split it. So yeah :) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Missing categories and structures in the list

The following supertall structures have to be added to the list. I would do it, if I know how I can. For these are also two categories to be added. These categories are bridges and electricity pylons But they should be missed in no case.

Bridges

• Millau Viaduct
• Strait of Messina Bridge (proposed)

Electricity pylons

• Yangtze River Crossing

Wayyyyyy to big

I mean, come on, there are pages where this template is 99% of the article! Like Rogun Dam and Conemaugh Generating Station. This really needs to be cut down in size. -Quasipalm 02:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear. It's three pages long on my browser, simply ridiculous. I'm going to start splitting it up. Bryan 05:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There, I split off the chimneys into {{supertall chimneys}}. My next target will be the observation and communication towers, I think, but for now I'm done. Bryan 06:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Done {{Supertall observation and communication towers}} Bryan 02:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

{{Supertall skyscrapers}} now. This template is finally getting down to a reasonable size. Bryan 23:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

{{supertall proposed skyscrapers}}. I'm thinking I might also split off the antennas, after which the remaining groups in this template would each be too small to be worth splitting off into a template of its own. That'd leave this template as a reasonably-sized little "catch-all" for the miscellaneous structures that don't fit neatly into other classifications. Bryan 00:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Cross-linking these split-off groups somehow

Oh, I should mention there was a brief discussion on my user talk page about the possibility of cross-linking these various groups of articles; User talk:Bryan Derksen#Template: Supertall. I personally feel that categories are the way to go with this sort of thing, and some appropriate categories already exist. Bryan 00:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Lakihegy?

Lakihegy Tower? - 314m - kgyt (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

?

this does not show buildings at all. Another thing, HOW IS THE EIFFEL TOWER AN ANTENNA? Or the CN Tower? --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 19:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am mistaken, buildings are not structures. But still I need explaning how the Eiffel Tower or the CN Tower are antennas. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 20:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Serious cleanup

As Sneaky Oviraptor said above, the "Antennas" section is highly innacurate. For one, there are towers there that do indeed have communications equipment on them, but there are also guyed masts such as the KVLY-TV mast. If guyed masts are included, then every single mast over 300 metres in the world will have to be added to this template. One look at the list of tallest structures in the world tells us that this will require one huge template. As above discussions have led to, there are other templates such as Template:Supertall observation and communication towers - which is basically the "antennas" section of this template (also innacurate as not all masts are included). --timsdad ^(talk) 04:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added all of the supertall freestanding towers from the list of tallest towers in the world, eliminating the need for the other template linked above, which I have created a discussion for here if anybody wants to join.

Supertall?

Why these are listed: Xiaowan Dam (292 m), Grande Dixence Dam (285 m), Xiluodu Dam (273 m), Elbe Crossing 2 (227 m), Shukhov tower on the Oka River (125 m)?
I thought that 'supertall' is over 300 meters. 82.141.75.73 (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think there was a definition. I think supertall is relative to the structure. A dam over 260m tall is supertall in my opinion.--NortyNort (Holla) 17:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"Amritsar TV Tower"?

As far as I can see, there is no super-tall structure called "Amritsar TV Tower". Moreover, there is nothing matching the description of a super-tall TV tower in Amritsar. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)