Talk:List of tallest bridges

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Length of list[edit]

I do not think that this article needs to include bridges that have a vertical clearance underneath for standard ocean-going vessels. I do not see the world-wide notability in that. I think the list should stop at about 1.5 times the clearance needed for a ship to go underneath. I suggest about 75 meters (250 feet) as the stopping point for the list based on clearance underneath. - SCgatorFan (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many are included just for the height of their pillars, not for their vertical clearance. Vertical clearance below 70 m is not remarkable, since bridges allowing large ships below have about 60-65 m according to international standards. --BIL (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all below 175m as the list was getting quite long and the accuracy of the list gets worse as the height get less. ShakyIsles (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all below 200m as the list was getting quite long and the accuracy of the list gets worse as the height get less. ShakyIsles (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


# Name Height of bridge structure Longest Span Type Opened Location Carries Remarks
1 Hangzhou Bay Bridge 197 metres (646 ft) 318 metres (1,043 ft) Cable-stayed 2008  China Jiaxing Expressway
2 Wujiang Nanmudu Bridge 197 metres (646 ft) 320 metres (1,050 ft) Cable-stayed 2018  China Nanmuduzhen, Guizhou Expressway
3 Corgo Bridge 197 metres (646 ft) 300 metres (980 ft) Cable-stayed 2018  Portugal Vila Real, Trás-os-Montes Expressway
4 Maling River Shankun Expressway Bridge 196 metres (643 ft)[1] 360 metres (1,180 ft) Cable-stayed 2011  China Xingyi Expressway
5 Second Nanjing Yangtze Bridge 195.4 metres (641 ft) 628 metres (2,060 ft) Cable-stayed 2001  China Nanjing Expressway
6 Third Jinan Yellow River Bridge 195 metres (640 ft) 386 metres (1,266 ft) Cable-stayed 2008  China Jinan Expressway
7 Hezhang Bridge 195 metres (640 ft)[2] 180 metres (590 ft) Concrete 2013  China Hezhang Expressway
8 Hongshui River Huiluo Bridge 195 metres (640 ft) 508 metres (1,667 ft) Cable-stayed 2018  China Hongshuihezhen, Guizhou Expressway
9 New Yalu River Bridge 194.6 metres (638 ft) 636 metres (2,087 ft) Cable-stayed 2015  China/ North Korea Dandong/Sinuiju
40°2′7.8″N 124°22′11.2″E / 40.035500°N 124.369778°E / 40.035500; 124.369778 (New Yalu River Bridge)[3]		 Road
10 Taizhou Yangtze River Bridge 194 metres (636 ft)[2] 1,080 metres (3,540 ft) Suspension 2012  China Taizhou Expressway
11 Haihuang Bridge 193.6 metres (635 ft) 560 metres (1,840 ft) Cable-stayed 2017  China Ganduzhen, Qinghai Expressway
12 Jiangyin Suspension Bridge 193 metres (633 ft)[2] 1,385 metres (4,544 ft) Suspension 1997  China Jiangyin Road
13 Huanggang Yangtze River Bridge 193 metres (633 ft) 567 metres (1,860 ft) Cable-stayed 2014  China Huanggang, Hubei Expressway/railway
13 Meixi River Expressway Bridge 193 metres (633 ft)[4] 386 metres (1,266 ft) Cable-stayed 2010  China Fengjie Expressway
15 Tieluoping Bridge 192 metres (630 ft)[2] 322 metres (1,056 ft) Cable-stayed 2009  China Langping Expressway
16 Puente de Castilla la Mancha 192 metres (630 ft)[5] 318 metres (1,043 ft) Cable-stayed 2011  Spain Talavera Road
17 Shennongxi Bridge 191 metres (627 ft) [6] 320 metres (1,050 ft) Cable-stayed 2012  China Yanduhezhen Expressway
18 Sunxihe Bridge
笋溪河特大桥		 190.7 metres (626 ft)[7] 660 metres (2,170 ft) Suspension 2018  China Bailinzhen, Chongqing
28°42′44.6″N 106°27′41.2″E / 28.712389°N 106.461444°E / 28.712389; 106.461444 (Sunxi River Bridge)		 Road
19 25 de Abril Bridge 190.5 metres (625 ft) 1,013 metres (3,323 ft) Suspension 1966  Portugal Lisbon Expressway/railway
20 Beipanjiang Wang'an Bridge 190.4 metres (625 ft) 328 metres (1,076 ft) Cable-stayed 2015  China Ceheng, Guizhou Expressway
21 Meiko-Chuo Bridge 190 metres (620 ft)[8] 590 metres (1,940 ft) Cable-stayed 1998  Japan Nagoya Expressway
22 Liuchonghe Bridge 190 metres (620 ft)[2] 438 metres (1,437 ft) Cable-stayed 2013  China Zhijin Expressway
23 Tianxingzhou Yangtze River Bridge 190 metres (620 ft)[2] 504 metres (1,654 ft) Cable-stayed 2009  China Wuhan Expressway/railway
24 Nanxi Xianyuan Yangtze River Bridge 189 metres (620 ft) 572 metres (1,877 ft) Cable-stayed 2019  China Nanxi District, Sichuan Expressway
25 Dingshan Bridge 188.3 metres (618 ft)[2] 464 metres (1,522 ft) Cable-stayed 2013  China Jiangjin Road/railway
26 Wulingshan Bridge 188 metres (617 ft)[9] 263 metres (863 ft) Cable-stayed 2009  China Pengshui Expressway
27 Kanchanaphisek Bridge 188 metres (617 ft) 500 metres (1,600 ft) Cable-stayed 2007  Thailand Samut Prakan Expressway
28 La Pepa Bridge 187 metres (614 ft) 540 metres (1,770 ft) Cable-stayed 2015  Spain Cádiz, Andalusia Expressway
29 Changmen Bridge 186.2 metres (611 ft) 550 metres (1,800 ft) Cable-stayed 2019  China Fuzhou, Fujian Expressway
30 Jiangshun Xi River Bridge [zh] 186 metres (610 ft)[10] 700 metres (2,300 ft) Cable-stayed 2015  China Foshan - Jiangmen (Guangdong)
22°46′41″N 113°04′29″E / 22.77806°N 113.07472°E / 22.77806; 113.07472 (Jiangshun Xi River Bridge)		 Expressway
31 Viadotto Sente 185 metres (607 ft)[11] 200 metres (660 ft) Concrete 1977  Italy Belmonte del Sannio Road
32 Anqing Bridge 185 metres (607 ft)[12] 510 metres (1,670 ft) Cable-stayed 2004  China Anhui Expressway
33 La Pepa Bridge 185 metres (607 ft) 540 metres (1,770 ft) Cable-stayed 2015  Spain Cadiz Expressway
34 George Washington Bridge 184.1 metres (604 ft) 1,100 metres (3,600 ft) Suspension 1931  United States Fort Lee, New Jersey Expressway
35 Centennial Bridge 184 metres (604 ft) 420 metres (1,380 ft) Cable-stayed 2004  Panama Paraíso Expressway
36 Kurushima-Kaikyō Bridge 184 metres (604 ft) 1,030 metres (3,380 ft) Suspension 1999  Japan Imabari Expressway
37 Hanjiatuo Bridge 184 metres (604 ft)[2] 432 metres (1,417 ft) Cable-stayed 2013  China Fuling Expressway/railway
38 Kao-Ping Hsi Bridge 183.5 metres (602 ft)[13] 330 metres (1,080 ft) Cable-stayed 2000  Taiwan Kaohsiung Expressway
39 Qincaobei Bridge 183 metres (600 ft)[2] 788 metres (2,585 ft) Suspension 2013  China Lidu Expressway
40 Sanshuihe Bridge 183 metres (600 ft) 185 metres (607 ft) Beam 2015  China Xunyi, Shaanxi Expressway
41 Labajin Bridge 182.6 metres (599 ft)[14] 200 metres (660 ft) Concrete 2012  China Yingjing Expressway
42 Gong'an Yangtze River Bridge 182.5 metres (599 ft) 518 metres (1,699 ft) Cable-stayed 2018  China Gong'an County - Jiangling County, Hubei Expressway
43 Seohae Bridge 182 metres (597 ft) 470 metres (1,540 ft) Cable-stayed 2000  South Korea Gyeonggi Expressway
44 Dongsha Bridge 182 metres (597 ft) 338 metres (1,109 ft) Cable-stayed 2008  China Guangzhou Road
45 Rio Negro Bridge 182 metres (597 ft)[15] 200 metres (660 ft) Cable-stayed 2011  Brazil Manaus Road
46 Qingzhou Bridge 180.5 metres (592 ft) 605 metres (1,985 ft) Cable-stayed 2001  China Fuzhou Expressway
47 Höga Kusten Bridge 180 metres (590 ft) 1,210 metres (3,970 ft) Suspension 1997  Sweden Kramfors Expressway
48 Tsurumi Tsubasa Bridge 180 metres (590 ft) 510 metres (1,670 ft) Cable-stayed 1994  Japan Yokohama Expressway
49 Caijia Bridge 179.5 metres (589 ft)[2] 250 metres (820 ft) Cable-stayed 2013  China Chongqing Metro Railway
50 Bincaogang Bridge 179.4 metres (589 ft) 200 metres (660 ft) Cable-stayed 2001  China Panzhihua, Sichuan Road
51 Ma'anshan Yangtze River Bridge 179 metres (587 ft) 1,080 metres (3,540 ft) Suspension 2013  China Ma'anshan Expressway
52 Fuling Wujiang Bridge 178 metres (584 ft)[2] 340 metres (1,120 ft) Cable-stayed 2009  China Fuling Road
53 Kocher Viaduct 178 metres (584 ft) 138 metres (453 ft) Concrete 1979  Germany Geislingen, Baden-Württemberg Expressway
54 Longtanhe River Viaduct 178 metres (584 ft)[2] 200 metres (660 ft) Concrete 2009  China Langpingzhen Expressway
55 Hongxi Bridge 177 metres (581 ft) 265 metres (869 ft) Extradosed 2020  China Taishun, Zhejiang Expressway
56 Yunyang Yangtze River Bridge 177 metres (581 ft)[2] 318 metres (1,043 ft) Cable-stayed 2005  China Yunyang Road
57 Beipanjiang Shuipan Bridge 176 metres (577 ft)[16] 290 metres (950 ft) Concrete 2012  China Fa’er Bouyei Road
58 Wadi Leban Bridge 175.5 metres (576 ft)[17] 405 metres (1,329 ft) Cable-stayed 1997  Saudi Arabia Riyadh Expressway
59 Cần Thơ Bridge 175.3 metres (575 ft) 550 metres (1,800 ft) Cable-stayed 2010  Vietnam Cần Thơ & Vĩnh Long Expressway
60 Hålogaland Bridge 175 metres (574 ft) 1,145 metres (3,757 ft) Suspension 2018  Norway Rombaken, Narvik Expressway
61 Erhaihe Bridge 175 metres (574 ft) 190 metres (620 ft) Beam 2016  China Qianxi, Guizhou Expressway
62 Tongzihe Bridge 175 metres (574 ft) 200 metres (660 ft) Beam 2013  China Erlangxiang, Guizhou Expressway
63 Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge 175 metres (574 ft) 471 metres (1,545 ft) Cable-stayed 2005  United States Charleston, South Carolina Expressway
64 Baishazhou Bridge 175 metres (574 ft)[18] 618 metres (2,028 ft) Cable-stayed 2000  China Wuhan Expressway
59 Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge 174 metres (571 ft) 471 metres (1,545 ft) Cable-stayed 2005  United States - Charleston, South Carolina Expressway
60 Mega Bridge 173 metres (568 ft) 398 metres (1,306 ft) Cable-stayed 2006  Thailand - Bangkok
61 Rama VIII Bridge 170.4 metres (559 ft) 300 metres (980 ft) Cable-stayed 2002  Thailand - Bangkok Road
62 Baluarte Bridge 169 metres (554 ft) 520 metres (1,710 ft) Cable-stayed 2012  Mexico - Sinaloa / Durango Motorway
62 Bosphorus Bridge 169 metres (554 ft) 1,074 metres (3,524 ft) Suspension 1974  Turkey - Istanbul Motorway
64 Mackinac Bridge 168.2 metres (552 ft) 1,158 metres (3,799 ft) Suspension 1957  United States - Michigan Motorway
65 Grenland Bridge 168 metres (551 ft) 305 metres (1,001 ft) Cable-stayed 1996  Norway - Porsgrunn Road
66 Machang Bridge[19] 165 metres (541 ft) 450 metres (1,480 ft) Cable-stayed 2009  South Korea - Masan Expressway
67 New Port Mann Bridge 163 metres (535 ft) 470 metres (1,540 ft) Cable-stayed 2012  Canada - Surrey, British Columbia Road
68 Humber Bridge 162 metres (531 ft) 1,410 metres (4,630 ft) Suspension 1981  England - Kingston upon Hull Road
69 San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (West) 160.3 metres (526 ft) 704 metres (2,310 ft)[20] Suspension 1936  United States - San Francisco Motorway
70 Foresthill Bridge 159 metres (522 ft) 263 metres (863 ft) Cantilever 1973  United States - Auburn Road
71 3rd Tacoma Narrows Bridge 155.5 metres (510 ft) 853 metres (2,799 ft)[21] Suspension 2007  United States - Tacoma Motorway
72 Vasco da Gama Bridge 155 metres (509 ft) 420 metres (1,380 ft) Cable-stayed 1998  Portugal - Lisboa Road [22]
73 Alex Fraser Bridge 154 metres (505 ft) 465 metres (1,526 ft) Cable-stayed 1986  Canada - Delta, Greater Vancouver
73 Suez Canal Bridge 154 metres (505 ft) 404 metres (1,325 ft) cable-stayed 2001  Egypt - El Qantara Road
75 Zhanjiang Bay Bridge 153.4 metres (503 ft) 480 metres (1,570 ft) Cable-stayed 2006  People's Republic of China - Zhanjiang
76 Donghai Bridge 152.4 metres (500 ft) 420 metres (1,380 ft) Cable-stayed 2005  People's Republic of China - Shanghai Road
77 Skarnsund Bridge 152 metres (499 ft) 530 metres (1,740 ft) Cable-stayed 1991  Norway - Mosvik
77 John James Audubon Bridge 152 metres (499 ft) 482 metres (1,581 ft) Cable-stayed 2011  United States - Louisiana Road
77 Askøy Bridge 152 metres (499 ft) 850 metres (2,790 ft) Suspension 1992  Norway - Askøy Road
80 Taoyaomen Bridge 151 metres (495 ft) 580 metres (1,900 ft) Cable-stayed 2003  China - Zhoushan Archipelago Road
81 Forth Road Bridge 150.1 metres (492 ft) 1,006 metres (3,301 ft) Suspension 1964  Scotland - Edinburgh Motorway
82 1st Tacoma Narrows Bridge 150 metres (490 ft) 853 metres (2,799 ft) Suspension 1940  United States - Tacoma, Washington Motorway destroyed in 1940
82 2nd Tacoma Narrows Bridge 150 metres (490 ft) 853 metres (2,799 ft)[23] Suspension 1950  United States - Tacoma Motorway
82 Surgut Bridge 150 metres (490 ft) 408 metres (1,339 ft) Cable-stayed 2000  Russia - Surgut Road World's longest single-pylon cable-stayed bridge span
82 Lali Bridge[19] 150 metres (490 ft) 255 metres (837 ft) Cable-stayed 2010  Iran - Gotvand Dam Road
82 Ganter Bridge 150 metres (490 ft)[24] 174 metres (571 ft) Extradosed 1980   Switzerland - Brig-Glis Road
82 Hutiaohe River Viaduct 150 metres (490 ft) 225 metres (738 ft) Concrete 2009  China - Sanbanqiaozhen Road [25]
  1. ^ "马岭河大桥". Retrieved 18 December 2012.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Cite error: The named reference test was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2013-03-13. Retrieved 2016-02-20.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  4. ^ "重庆奉云路梅溪河大桥". Rbsce.com. Archived from the original on 2013-12-03. Retrieved 2016-02-02.
  5. ^ "Puente atirantado Talavera de la Reina - Talavera de la Reina Bridge - Talavera de la Reina Cable-Stayed Bridge". www.estudioaia.com. Archived from the original on 30 March 2019. Retrieved 3 January 2018.
  6. ^ "Shennongxi Bridge". Archived from the original on 23 January 2013. Retrieved 18 December 2012.
  7. ^ 王庆炼. "重庆"第一高桥"笋溪河特大桥创下四个重庆第一". Archived from the original on 2018-07-18. Retrieved 2018-08-16.
  8. ^ "Meiko-Chuo Bridge". Archived from the original on 9 March 2013. Retrieved 18 December 2012.
  9. ^ "Wulingshan Bridge". Archived from the original on 23 January 2013. Retrieved 18 December 2012.
  10. ^ Jiangshun Bridge - The First Cable-Stayed Bridge in Guangdong - is Successfully Closed Archived March 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine
  11. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2018-04-24. Retrieved 2018-04-24.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  12. ^ Anqing Bridge at Structurae. Retrieved 5 September 2012.
  13. ^ "Kao-Ping Hsi Bridge". Archived from the original on 9 March 2013. Retrieved 14 December 2012.
  14. ^ "Labajin Bridge". Archived from the original on 23 January 2013. Retrieved 18 December 2012.
  15. ^ "Ponte Rio Negro". Archived from the original on 2 December 2013. Retrieved 14 December 2012.
  16. ^ "Beipanjiang River 2012 Bridge". Archived from the original on 23 January 2013. Retrieved 18 December 2012.
  17. ^ "Wadi Leban Bridge". Archived from the original on 9 March 2013. Retrieved 18 December 2012.
  18. ^ "Brücken Ausgabeseite". www.kochhome.de. Archived from the original on 14 September 2016. Retrieved 3 January 2018.
  19. ^ a b Mageba: Reference projects worldwide
  20. ^ "San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (West)". Retrieved 14 December 2012.
  21. ^ "New Tacoma Narrows Bridge". Retrieved 14 December 2012.
  22. ^ "Vasco da Gama Bridge". Retrieved 18 December 2012.
  23. ^ "Tacoma Narrows Bridge". Retrieved 14 December 2012.
  24. ^ "Ganter Bridge". Retrieved 14 December 2012.
  25. ^ "Hutiaohe River Viaduct". Retrieved 18 December 2012.

Tallest vs. Highest[edit]

Please note that this is a List of tallest bridges in the world. i.e. their structural height. There is a seperate List of highest bridges in the world which measures the height above the ground.ShakyIsles (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title/Content of the article[edit]

Where does the new 'Hoover Dam(bypass)Bridge' rate in this list ? I do believe it is taller then the Millau Bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.79.140 (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I am thinking that this topic may warrant two lists within the article: (1) highest and (2) tallest. Because of the fame of the Millau Bridge, many readers will come to this article looking for the bridge that has the tallest piers. When the Millau Bridge opened, there was much mis-reporting by the media that this bridge was the highest in the world—completely forgetting the Royal Gorge Bridge.[reply]

So would it hurt for this article to have two short lists (say the top twenty five of each). I am of the opinion that the article should be simple and clear to the reader. Expecting them to sort and re-rank the list may be confusing to the average reader.

Lists like this should be especially simple and clear as there will be many primary/elementary students using the information. - SCgatorFan (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New article duplicates half of this one[edit]

A new article has been started, List of highest bridges in the world. This duplicates the first half of this article, bridges with large clearance. I think that section should be deleted from this article. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody responded that this ws a bad idea, I am going to delete the section and send folks to the other article. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloukrans Bridge[edit]

The Bloukrans Bridge bridge in South Africa is missing off this list. --Firefishy (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloukrans Bridge doesn't register on this list. It is already on the List of highest bridges in the world. I've reverted the edit which added it here.ShakyIsles (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike O'Callaghan – Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge[edit]

The Mike O'Callaghan – Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge has a clearance of 270m. but it most certainty does not have a structural height of 270m, the base of the arch / piers are half way up the gorge. I recommend this is moved down the list from number 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.202.180 (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest Bridge? Baluarte bridge (Mexico)[edit]

Isn't the newly inaugurated Baluarte bridge in Mexico the tallest bridge now with 403m?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16434200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastergalen (talk • contribs) 20:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, read carefully first paragraph. Baluarte Bridge is already in this list (see 36th place), also included in List of highest bridges in the world on 2nd place. Stating Baluarte Bridge as highest or tallest is simply wrong. --Jklamo (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two bridges over Bosphorus[edit]

Bosphorus Bridge is listed, however Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge (which is of the same height) is missing.Nkt777 (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge page the height is only listed as 106 metres (348 ft). The current cutoff on this page is 150 metres (490 ft) so it isn't included.ShakyIsles (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other bridges[edit]

Here are some more bridges with towers higher than 175 meters in China, South Korea and Japan :

Baling River Bridge : 204.5 m The Balinghe Bridge in China – World’s Highest Bridge  Done ShakyIsles (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jiujiang Highway Yangtze River Bridge : 242.31 (not sure) 福银高速九江长江公路大桥项目简介 DoneHighestBridges (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zhangzhou Xiamen Bridge : 227 m  DoneHighestBridges (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xupu Bridge : 217 m 徐浦大桥 on Baidu  Done ShakyIsles (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huangyi Yangtze River Bridge : 210 m 泸州黄舣长江大桥  DoneHighestBridges (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zhongxian Huyu Expressway Bridge : 247.5 m 《人民日报》公告：桥梁公司两桥获国家优质工程银质奖 on china railway first group coltd  Done ShakyIsles (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hanjiatuo Bridge : 179 and 184 m respectively 韩家沱长江大桥：力争鲁班奖 on cnbridges  DoneHighestBridges (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bukhang Bridge : 190 m (south korea)

Tsurumi Tsubasa Bridge : 183 m  DoneHighestBridges (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anqing Yangtze River Railway Bridge : 210 m ah.anhuinews.com (biggest highspeed railway cable-stayed bridge)  Done
Third Jinan Yellow River Bridge : 195 m (济南黄河三桥 cnbridge.cn)  DoneHighestBridges (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meixi River Expressway Bridge : 193 m (梅溪河大桥)rbsce.com  Done ShakyIsles (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tieluoping Bridge : 192 m (铁罗特大桥) Enshi.cn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glabb (talk • contribs) 13:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)  DoneHighestBridges (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Glabb (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and I forgot one of the most beautiful of all cable stayed bridges :
Rio–Antirrio bridge : 220 m Design and Construction gefyra.gr (official website)
I think that all new big cable-stayed bridges over the Yangtze have towers >= 175 m (Second Fengdu, Wangdong, Second Tongling and Yongchuan Yangtze River Bridges) as some big suspension bridges (Ma'anshan, Yingwuzhou)
--Glabb (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 April 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Harej (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


– As per other pages starting "List of the tallest ...". As per grammar example "Everest is the highest mountain in the world." As per Ngrams for "height of the tallest,height of tallest". As perhaps is appropriate to the topic area, the list is tall. GregKaye 13:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. As can be seen from the above list compared to the three articles that start "list of the tallest" the current way of writing it is far more common and natural. The examples you use are mostly of singular things, not plural, so irrelevant. "list of xxx" is natural and grammatically correct.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can see it is only more common, for whatever reason, within Wikipedia. The Ngrams indicate that it is not common elsewhere. GregKaye 10:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because an argument could be made that WP:THE & WP:DEFINITE should apply here, since all list articles typically begin with the type of list it is (List of, Index of, etc.), followed by the article's subject; and since a definite article is not integral to the subject of "tallest buildings or structures" (or similar), it should therefore be left out. Also, consistency is an important WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, and if you look at the list of superlatives it actually seems like most titles lack a definite article, including the overwhelming majority of articles dealing with "tallest buildings." Are you going to suggest that we should also rename all categories? / Gavleson (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gavleson How does the argument of WP:THE apply to the middle of a section of writing. In a world where people point the finger at Wikipedia for inaccuracy, we then present titles that even fail on some basic issues of English grammar. There is consistency and we retain the wording List and tallest. However we also make use of correct grammar.
The other way we could do things would be to present a consistent "List of X by height" presentation. Failing that can we please have titles that get their grammar right. GregKaye 22:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But we're not discussing a "section of writing" here -- we're discussing titles (e.g. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a fine title). You claim these titles are grammatically incorrect, but I believe it's perfectly fine to omit the article altogether for indefinite plural nouns (example 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The example you gave was a singular, identifiable entity. As for why WP:THE & WP:DEFINITE may apply: Again, list articles typically start with the words "list of" -- i.e. it could be argued those words are part of the beginning or at the start of list articles -- and a definite article "not integral to the subject" (the subject being a superlative+plural noun, like "tallest buildings") should therefore be left out.
Furthermore, these titles have been stable for a long time. For example, the list of tallest buildings in the United States have been titled as such since 2006, and renaming them would lead to the renaming of hundreds of other stable articles and categories. Titles should not be changed unless there's a good reason for it, per WP:TITLECHANGES. / Gavleson (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The same category as contains Adventures of Huckleberry Finn also contains Music on the Bamboo Radio not Music on Bamboo Radio, Heart of the World (novel) not Heart of World (novel) and Journey to the End of the Whale not Journey to End of Whale. These would not be fine titles. We have no reason to present grammatically incorrect content. I think that an avoidance of a basic grammatical mistake is a good reason to move the articles.
Please, most of the news examples that you give are not in the "List of x in y" format. In any case, we are not writing news headlines but titles for an encyclopedia. Please see results in books for:
(most OR least OR lightest OR heaviest OR tallest OR longest OR shortest) AND "in the".
As far as I can see, titles with a "..st x in the y" content are all presented in a "The ..st x in the y" format. GregKaye 11:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned Adventures of Huckleberry Finn as an example of a famous literary work and title, where the author decided to omit the article in front of a plural noun. The examples you cite are other works, where the author have included the definite article, because it makes sense to do so (for whatever reason, it may be a stylistic choice, or because the zero article doesn't make sense, like in front of an identifiable entity). Of course we should NOT change the title of a work or publication, per WP:THE. I have never claimed that we should do that! It was used as an example, contradicting your claim that the zero article is grammatically incorrect. (For the record, I have also never claimed that it's incorrect to include a definite article.)
And why are the examples that I gave not valid? The all contain the phrase "list of", followed by the zero article (missing "the"), plus a superlative (e.g. "tallest") and a noun or plural noun (e.g. "buildings") -- like all of the titles you want to change:
  • Trump inches up list of tallest buildings - Chicago Tribune
  • List of worst shops for chicken bug is kept private - The Times
  • Census: Florida City Tops List of Fastest-Growing Areas - The New York Times
  • European jury announces list of best consumer electronic products for 2010-2011 - The Independent
  • National Journal: McCain Tops List of Most Conservative Senators - The New York Times
Titles in an encyclopaedia are subject to stylistic choices, just as much as titles in a newspaper. That's why both The New York Times and Wikipedia have style guides, and why we have guidelines such as WP:THE, after all. / Gavleson (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gavleson The articles that I have proposed to be moved are all in the "List of x in y" format while "Example text" The closest of your examples to this is "European jury announces list of best consumer electronic products for 2010-2011"
I proposed the use of a books search :(most OR least OR lightest OR heaviest OR tallest OR longest OR shortest) AND "in the" which gives the results (as they contain a "fooest" followed by something like an "in bar" type content). These results in sequence are:
  • The Most Beautiful Girl in the World
  • The Most Misused Verses in the Bible
  • The Most Important Fish in the Sea
  • The Most Dangerous Area in the World
  • The 100 Most Significant Events in American Business
  • The Most Wonderful Doll in the World
  • The Most Dangerous Man In The World
  • The Most Important Little Boy in the World
  • Vesuvius: The most famous volcano in the world
  • The tallest, shortest, longest, greenest, brownest animal in the jungle!
  • The Most Successful Small Business in The World
  • Burj Khalifa: The Tallest Tower in the World
  • The Least Examined Branch: The Role of Legislatures in the Constitutional State
  • A short synopsis of the most essential points in Hawaiian grammar
  • A brief summary, in plain language, of the most important laws of England concerning women
  • Catalonia: An Emerging Economy : the Most Cost-effective Ports in the Mediterranean Sea
  • The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World
  • The Most Powerful Idea in the World: A Story of Steam,..
  • Notices of the Most Remarkable Fires in Edinburgh
  • Most Beautiful House in the World
I went through 18 examples (not including the "in Most of the World" example) that consistently used "the fooest" before finding one example, which happened to be at the beginning of the phrasing, which omitted the article. GregKaye 10:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, seems a logical series of moves for readability and word flow. Randy Kryn 22:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it seems to me more correct and natural the way it is now. --Ita140188 (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ita140188 Can you cite any guideline on grammar that shows this to be more correct?
I personally think that a use of good grammar is one of the more neglected issues of Wikipedia editing. GregKaye 10:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • An alternate and still grammatically correct way of presenting the topic might be to use a "List of buildings and structures in X by height"
This would follow the example of Lists of organisms by population and many other "List of x by y" type articles in Wikipedia. I think that there would be great value in getting our grammar right. GregKaye 10:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with 'List of buildings and structures in X by height' is it implies it lists all buildings. While 'List of tallest buildings and structures in X' explicitly states it is a list of tallest buildings, so the top 100 (or whatever). The 'by height' is implicit as a list of the 100 tallest should rank them by height. Again, there is nothing wrong with the way the titles are now. It is grammatical, unambiguous, and given the preponderance of such titles over ones starting "list of the tallest" it is clear the majority of editors working on such articles find it so.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JohnBlackburne I certainly agree that an implication may be taken that way but perhaps to a lesser extent the same thing applies to articles such as List of islands by area.
Another option for generating grammatical sense would involve a removal of "List of" so as to leave titles such as Tallest bridges in the world. While I am not recommending this option, it would be consistent with a format presented by Largest cities in Asia. GregKaye 16:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see where the problem is. There is nothing wrong with the titles above grammatically. If there were do you think so many would have been created and existed for so long. Again, your examples seem largely concerned with singular instances and carry little weight. The evidence of existing usage here is far more persuasive.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The proposed changes are based on semantics which, if applied conversely, would demand that all articles sans definite/indefinite article should be changed to conform to inclusion or non-inclusion of English language grammatical principles across the entirety of Wikipedia. The proposal is trivial and disruptive at best. Would this, then, demand an editor energy sinkhole into proposals to remove the definite/indefinite articles in all lists as being redundant in the future? Regulars have more important issues to stay on top of. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a solution looking for a problem. There is nothing ungrammatical about the ellipses of title-style syntax being used for article titles (and it's more of a style than a grammar issue), and as User:Iryna Harpy notes above, such a mass proposal is borderline disruptive. —  AjaxSmack  03:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, how ludicrous would it be if the RM were rejected here, but accepted for List of most common surnames in Asia. As I've noted at the RM on that talk page, grammatical issues impacting on numerous lists and articles right across Wikipedia should be addressed via an RfC. Either we apply consistent nomenclature across the board and decide that it's really worth the effort of asking numerous regulars to comb through all articles, wikilinks, etc. (this is a taskforce effort!), or we acknowledge that it's okay for as a wishlist addition, but too trivial to pursue. This isn't an issue for local preferences, but one for the entire community. Is it really so important that hundreds of volunteer hours be dedicated to applying 'definite article' article changes? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna Harpy No one is asking anyone to comb. Currently both presentations, with or without grammatical use of the definite article, are used. We do not currently have consistency. Why should Wikipedia not follow the same grammatical conventions followed by, for instance, books. GregKaye 09:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GregKaye: I've already addressed the crux of my argument as regards why I perceive this to be potentially disruptive. I'm not concerned about the correctness of two instances of the use of the definite article for lists. What does concern me is that, within the context of the entire scope of the Wikipedia project, it is encouraging potentially disruptive editing as others decide to match up the formatting on literally thousands of articles pointing to this RM as justification.

Let's take an cursory peek at how many articles do not conform via a quick search of Wikipedia:

I haven't bothered to pull up anything that could possibly be understood to be representative of being the tip of the iceberg, nor does it even begin to represent the extent of "List of" convolutions which should be applied if we were to be serious about addressing the inconsistencies, and am merely trying to demonstrate the sheer scale of changes to be made. Again, in theory it's fine to apply grammatically correct practices; in reality such lipservice is futile and disruptive. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Harpy I would consider that arguably the following articles should be moved.
I think that you are interpreting a difference in views and priorities as disruption and would ask you to AGF. I am not sure of the mechanics of categories but I from what I have seen the system still manages to keep things in order when changes like those proposed are made. I would also like to ask you to please argue the argument and not the person. GregKaye 00:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GregKaye: Could you please point out exactly where I have commented on you, the contributor, rather than the content and the broader ramifications of content issues? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna Harpy Despite significant checking before and during the current RMs I have seen no evidence of the type of title formatting "x of xest x in x" being used anywhere. As far as the specific format mentioned I have not even seen this in news. Regardless of AjaxSmack's presentation of "[[headlinese|title-style syntax]]" WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We are an encyclopedia. While I can see a potential validity, at a stretch, with titles such as List of most-produced rotorcraft I personally see no linguistic justification for having a title presentation other than List of the smallest cities in the United Kingdom. Your "Oppose The proposed changes are based on semantics ..." in, another context, could have read "Support The proposed changes are based on semantics ...". As mentioned elsewhere students would be downgraded for presentation of the mentioned contents that we it seems habitually present. Why would this "demand that all articles sans definite/indefinite article should be changed to conform"? From my perspective, why can't we at least get some content right? Disruptive on what grounds? As far as I can tell there would be a net benefit for readers. Who exactly are we building this encyclopedia for? From my point of view I do not see the point of covering up a form of error by the ensuring of its consistent application. At least part of our content would be presented as presenting, as I see it, without this very basic grammatical mistake.
You say that you "see this as being an RfC matter" yet I see less openness to debate and more dismissal for interpreted triviality.
When AjaxSmack asserts that "There is nothing ungrammatical about the ellipses of title-style syntax being used for article titles" when sources such as Britannica do not do this I say yes there is. Of course it is ungrammatical. We work with the English language and in this context the only question relates to whether or not it is justifiably ungrammatical. Within this, as I see it, context of dismissal and piped misrepresentation of argument I feel justified in presenting counter arguments. I do not see any reason why the implication should be left that I have acted in any way disruptively. I honestly thought this was a no brainer and that this was an appropriate route to open up constructive debate. Instead of taking the issue to some policy based page I saw this as a route that would draw in contribution from the relevant people who work with the articles.
I have tried to be constructive. In reply to JohnBlackburne I presented "Another option for generating grammatical sense would involve a removal of "List of" so as to leave titles such as Tallest bridges in the world." For my troubles I have had a fairly damning entry placed at AN/I. Rightly or wrongly I have opened consensus discussion via RM. Please, if editors have legitimate points to present then present them. GregKaye 06:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unnecessary (and due to number of "affected" articles disruptive as well). --Jklamo (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These are headlines, not running prose. The expectations are different, and the entire discussion of proper grammar in text is therefore irrelevant. They read better the way they are, and even a slight saving in the length of long titles is helpful. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Centralized page move discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

Expressway/motorway distinction? And what about "road"?[edit]

The terms "expressway" and "motorway" are both used to describe road bridges, despite the lack of a clear distinction. Now, there is a difference between a controlled-access highway and a general road on the surface, but bridges, pretty much by definition, don't have access along their length. So even that distinction seems pretty irrelevant for the bridge proper. Do any of these distinctions make sense, or should the article normalize on one term? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of tallest bridges. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Include deck height?[edit]

If we're including longest span why not also deck height? Aside from making the difference in deck and structure heights more clear, it would allow a quick comparison of the lists by sorting the relevant column. List of highest bridges also lacks the data of the counterpart list. I think this is a needless omission - there is plenty of space for the list to have another (quite useful) column. —DIY Editor (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deck height may be interesting. But more data means more work with maintenance. I think for the completeness of the list will be more useful having also under construction section rather than adding more columns to existing. But if you are willing to add deck heights for all 105 bridges in the list, feel free to do it.--Jklamo (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of tallest bridges. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of tallest bridges. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SO messed up[edit]

Last edit on two of the highest/tallest bridge pages completely screwed up the table format. Significant edits were made so I don’t want to reverse those but the coding for the tables really need to be fixed. Thank you! Dym75 (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_tallest_bridges&oldid=1214444394"