Talk:List of tallest freestanding structures

Architecture High‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Civil engineering

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles

World Trade Center inconsistency

This list has entries for One World Trade Center and for Two World Trade Center, and they both link to the World Trade Center article correctly. However, the height listed for One World Trade Center is that of One World Trade Center, the proposed new structure. To disambiguate, perhaps the original buildings should be referred to with numerals (1 and 2 instead of "one" and "two"), or as the North and South towers. Either way is consistent with conventions in use at the article for the original WTC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychlohexane (talk • contribs) 09:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

This list was made by using and merging lists of towers, skyscrapers and chimneys plus river crossing in china. So is it enough to add wikipedia references: 'list of towers', 'list of chimneys' and 'list of skyscrapers'? User:1123581321

That is not really a satisfactory solution. The article needs individual references on the page itself so that the data can be verified by other editors. --DAJF (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem is that I couldn't really find any longer list of tallest freestanding structures on web. That's why I created this article, maybe one of only few on web which provides us with so long list of free standing structures. And that's why I used wiki lists of tallest structures and supertall structures for free standing structures over 350 m (eliminating supported structures) and lists of chimneys, towers and scyscrepers (checking pinnacle height of each of them) for free standing structures under 350 m. So actually my article uses references from wikipedia lists mentioned above, not from just one external source which describes tallest freestanding structures (there's no such a source). So this list is as reliable as wiki lists of: tallest structures, supertall structures, skyscrapers, towers and chimneys. All I can do is to add references that describes tallest structures, skyscrapers, towers and chimneys. Is there anything else that can be done? User:1123581321

Finally I found a good source of highest freestanding structures on earth. It's all about filling a search form on skyscraperpage.com appropriately. The list (from the reference) shows all completed structures (towers, chimneys and skyscrapers) sorted by its pinnacle height. Our wikiipedia list is similar, but contains also structures which are still under construction, but already have reached at least 300 meters (Burj Dubai or World Financial Center, for example). User:1123581321 —Preceding comment was added at 17:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulm Cathedral is missing from this List, at about 163 m height having the highest main spire of any church, finished sometimes in the 19th century. There exist Wikipedia pages in english, german and several other languages, but I did not know - or dare - to enter the correct data into this table format. Maybe somebody will read this and correct this ommission... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.168.26 (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This list only goes down to 300 m. Therefore, Ulm Cathedral is nowhere near tall enough to be on it. Tehubernoob (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Hancock Center height

Something is wrong with the data. The Hancock center's page says that it is significantly shorter than the data on this page. Jetpac7890 (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belmont transmitting station

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont_transmitting_station i feel this tower as the tallest tower in the EU should be one this list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.27.110 (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skyscrapers height and masts

In this list we take into account a total height of a skyscraper (we treat it as a freestanding structure). That's why height of buildings with spires (like John Hancock Center) differs from their architectural top height. Masts aren't included in the list as they aren't freestanding structures. --1123581321 (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too much "tallest"

This list is a babylonian jumble of terms:

tallest freestanding structure
tallest structure
tallest skyscraper
tallest residential skyscraper
tallest mixed-use building
tallest observation tower
tallest lattice tower
tallest self-supporting steel structure

and last but not least my personal favourite:

tallest five-sided skyscraper

What comes next? Six-sided skyscraper? Seven-sided skyscraper? And who many sides have the Bank of America Tower, New York City, Bank of China Tower, Hong Kong or Bank of China Tower, Shanghai?

Next question, which height counts?

pinnacle height
spire height
structural height
antenna height
absolute height

This chaos has to be cleared before classifying "tallest whatever" of the world! axp_de ^Hello! 09:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei 101

There seems to be a problem with the comments on Taipei 101, in that if buildings classified as skyscrapers that were built before it are higher up on the list and therefore are taller, it cannot - according to the other data present - have been the "tallest skyscraper in the world 2004-2009" or the "first skyscraper to exceed 500m/1,640 ft in structural height." Does anyone have more accurate information, or a clarification on the definition of skyscraper in the source for the Taipei 101 comments as compared to the definition in the rest of the list? Tehubernoob (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the page on skyscrapers, and it uses the height without the spine. By that measure, Taipei 101 is taller than Willis Tower. However, that still leaves the issue of using multiple standards of measurement, which is a problem. Tehubernoob (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are taller structures than Taipei 101 on this list because they are not buildings, but towers. Towers, such as the CN Tower, are not continuously habitable and therefore cannot be considered buildings. This is why Taipei 101 is still the tallest completed building in the world. I could go into greater detail, but I'd just be repeating most of the information which can be found on the List of tallest buildings in the world and List of tallest buildings and structures in the world articles.

Also, the only standard of measurement which is applicable here is the entire height of the structure, regardless of spires or antennas. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too am deeply confused by this. Taipei is listed as "first skyscraper to exceed 500 m/1,640 ft in structural height.", yet the WTC also did exceed this, and it was built in 1972. That is, it specifically says "skyscraper" and not "building". Looks like some further explanations and/or clarifications ARE necessary as it is quite clear that I am not the only dumbass here. Old_Wombat (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of world's tallest freestanding structures?

why is it written here that the tallest structure in the world during years 1975-2007 was CN Tower , while the Warsaw radio mast, built in 1974 surpassed it by 93 (sic!) meters ( it was 643m/2,120 ft )? It collapsed in 1991, but during these 17 years it was the tallest one , and until 2007 it was the tallest human made structure ever ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.156.253.179 (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "freestanding" means that the structure is "freely standing" (i.e. no guy wires or other means of support). The Warsaw radio mast was a guyed mast... There are many guyed masts taller than the CN Tower, which can all be found here. --timsdad ^(talk) 11:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram

As delicately as this can be stated, the World Trade Center Buildings in New York should come out of diagram since they are not in existence anymore, and the article is regarding current structures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too much confusion

Has the Sear's tower and Petronas Twin Towers gotten shorter or something because in the 1990s Sears Tower and the WTC was tallest but it was beaten by the Petronas Twin Towers which is actually shorter and then beaten by Taipei 101. This is not possible, which one is really the tallest, the Petronas Towers, Sears Tower or Taipei 101? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.102.234 (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Descrepancy between Feet and Metres

The list contains this:

Two International Finance Centre 1,348 feet 415.8 m
Two World Trade Center 1,362 feet 415.3 m

Two World Trade Centre is shorter than Two International Finance Centre when measured in metres, but taller when measured in feet. Which should it be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunbuilder (talk • contribs) 19:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World's tallest "fill in blank"

These lists are obvious redundant since Burj Khalifa is on every single list. All of these lists need reconsideration. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More categories

WAY more categories.That would help verify the material encyclopediacally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priapeace (talk • contribs) 01:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rule for listing under construction structures

There already exists a rule, mentioned in article:

Structures under construction are included in main list if its current height is over 350 metres (1,148 ft).

I would like to expand this rule to the following:

Structures under construction are included in main list if its current height is over 350 metres (1,148 ft), and the expected height and year of completion is mentioned.

Reasons: 1) The final height is more interesting and easier to manage than the ephemeral fact about the instantaneous height. 2) mentioning current year for under construction towers is uninformative and boring, as well as potentially misleading. --Bxj (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, before even discussing what the text of the rule for listing should be, there appears to be another rule for listing at least one user is going by: the "not topped out yet" rule for delisting:

(cur | prev) 03:28, 15 December 2010 Jerchel (talk | contribs) (31,282 bytes) (→Freestanding structures (past or present) over 350 metres (1,148 ft): Tokyo Sky Tree not topped out yet) (undo)

Was this actually a rule for listing? There are multiple similar edits by this author for the same reason. I'm not sure where this rule came from (as it is not available in the article itself), but I suggest there be a discussion about, and at least put it into writing somewhere, for obvious reasons. --Bxj (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's shit. You can't list a structure at 600 meters, although it has not reached that height yet. In fact, the Tokyo Sky Tree is not the secondtallest freestanding structure at the time, so we can't list it as it would be. Jerchel (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerchel!! Glad you're willing to join in on a conversation instead of reverting edits multiple times! I'll just go ahead and ignore your expletive, if that's fine with you. You have to realize that I also have to deal with your edits, too. This is an issue that involves multiple buildings that you've removed, contrary to the article's wording, which states that the table should also include buildings that are "under construction" and "over 350 meters." Therefore, before we can even discuss how it gets listed, we are faced with the problem of you removing these buildings contrary to the criteria for inclusion as mentioned in the article. Care to explain yourself? --Bxj (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you can not list a structure that is under-construction in that list, because the height changes daily. That's the problem. You can only list it when it is topped out, because then you have the true height. A topped-out building is also under-construction until the interior is completed as well. That's the reason why I'm going to remove the Toky Sky Tree, becuase it has not reached 634m NOW. Jerchel (talk) 15:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you removed sky tree already from the list before I even commented in this section, so maybe a future tense doesn't make sense there. You say that a structure under construction can be on the list, however, you say it has to be topped out in order to be on the list. First of all that's not the rule for inclusion mentioned in the article. Rather than saying one thing and doing something different, it's better to have a stated rule for inclusion and execute it accordingly. In the beginning of this section, I have proposed a method of including under construction buildings above 350m, as the rule currently states, even if the building has not been topped out yet. These under construction buildings get quite a bit of media coverage, hence they are notable as well as topical, perhaps making them worthy of inclusion. Perhaps this is the reason why these structures are included so often by multiple users, before they are removed. --Bxj (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the list is now, it says that the Tokyo Sky Tree is the worlds second tallest structure. But that is incorrect. It is not topped out at 634m for now. There are still 30 meters to go. If you want to list it, then please at the CURRENT height. But that would provide a problem, because you have to update the height every day. Jerchel (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Willis Tower

Do you think we should indicate that Willis Tower is formerly known as Sears Tower? Even with the name change, I think most people still refer to it as Sears Tower because its been part of their vernacular for decades, and I think a lot people either don't know the tower's name has changed or don't know the tower's current name. When I looked at the article, I saw Willis Tower, and immediately thought, "oh that must be what Sears Tower is called now." Racingstripes (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it could go into parentheses, formerly known as the Sears Tower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. --Bxj (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Towers

I really don't mean this to sound unsympathetic so understand while reading this, it is not eant with a harsh tone. But the article states the italic words are formerly standing structures. The only structures listed in italics are two New York City buildings, the Twin Tower buildings. This seems like preferential treatment. I tend to see this routinely in many articles where New York is concerned, and it is questionable. Again, I do not mean this to sound unsympathetic of the horrible terrorist attack that happened there, and the people that were killed, and the buildings that were destroyed. It was a terrible act. But we have to put aside our personal feelings and understand this is an encyclopedia article. So the question is: Why are there nonexisting buildings listed in an article of the tallest free-standing structures in the world if they don't exist? Again, the buildings no longer exist. The Twin Towers belong in an article such as "List of the former tallest structutes in the world", or something to that effect. Also, it could be mentioned in the building's own article where their height stood among world structures. However, this isn't the appropriate article for the buildings to continue to be listed in because this is an encyclopedia article; personal feelings must be left out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would their inclusion be preferential treatment, non-encyclopedic, etc? You make these accusations like they are a given that don't need explanation. Of course the twin towers should be included as they were clearly notable structures. Creating yet another article not for the benefit of the reader, but for the sole purpose of unexplained accusations against mentioning the twin towers sounds like a bad idea to me. As a point of comparison, List of tallest buildings and structures in the world article includes Warsaw Radio Mast, which has been destroyed. If I were to vote, I would vote that no changes to the article is necessary with this regard about the twin towers. --Bxj (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omission of 1WTC?

I only see Two World Trade Center on there, not One World Trade Center. If both towers are listed separately (such as the Petronas towers, and as suggested by naming the current WTC entry "Two World Trade Center") then why aren't both towers on there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.38.217 (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strassbourg

How is Strassbourg cathedral on the historic list? Looking at the heights its given height is smaller than that of the pyramids- surely the pyramids should have been restored to being the tallest in the world again for a little while after the taller churches collapsed?--202.174.58.161 (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By 1647, the Great Pyramid of Giza got eroded to (approx) 139.3 m. Astronaut (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shard

The Shard is not here, it should be near the bottom of the chart but it should still be here, it was topped out end of March 2012 then opened to the public this week in July. 309.6m. Funny it's missing as it's currently on the Main Page too.... Unless there is some odd reason it's not included that I'm not aware of.Carlwev (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Shard was inaugurated in July 2012. It didn't open to the public until February 2013. It has however been added to the list since you left your question. Astronaut (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eiffel Tower in the timeline table

Eiffel Tower's height in the timeline table is marked as 312 meters (1020 ft). However, its article has its height at the time as 300.24 meters (985 ft). Neither seem to have a specific source. 85.217.22.25 (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the Eiffel Tower states the roof as being 300.65 m, it also says the antenna makes it 324.0 m to the "tip" - both figures are reported by this reliable source. Our article also says the present antenna wasn't added until 1957. However, the word "present" suggests to me that the antenna replaced a different antenna, though that isn't explicitly stated in the article nor does it say what the height of the tip was before it was increased to 324 m. I suppose it is possible a shorter antenna made it 312 m, but I can't find a reliable source that say so; in particular we would need a source saying that the height was 312 m during the period 1889 to 1930. In the meantime, I have modified the article to reflect the roof height of 300.65 m. Astronaut (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the end of Eiffel tower article this is also stated:

World's tallest structure

1889—1931

300.24m

And actually that source has this: Height: Architectural 300.0 meter / 984 feet

That link of yours made me think of skyscraperpage.com, and indeed, there it is: [[1]]. According to that page height in 1889-1957 was 312.27 m. 85.217.22.25 (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbnails

I suggest it would be useful to add a column to the table containing a thumbnail of the tower. I suggest it should be the leftmost column and that the thumbnails should be no more than a few lines long, so it doesn't make the table longer. Geo Swan (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be useful? The thumbnails would be too small to see, and too obtrusive if made larger. It would also increase page load times for everyone and network traffic which is especially relevant for mobile users. And quite a few don't have suitable images or no image at all.

That kind of column of images only really works if the list is small, every line has an image, and they are the correct size and format to be useful to the reader. Astronaut (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subsea structures

There are Oil production riser system which are in a freestanding configuration (riser towers, etc). However, they are entirely subsea. Would they count in this category?66.249.88.33 (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)luca[reply]

The article lead says "It does not include supported structures like ... drilling platforms." So would they count? The answer is no. The problem is that the weight of subsea structures is at least partially supported by the surrounding water. Astronaut (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tower vs building vs skyscraper

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

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 first page has too much white (wasted) space. 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) 17:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 13:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Tower Auckland

Thanks to Timsdad for your response. However the proper place to discuss edits is in the article talk page. In the table where the Sky Tower is listed the last column states it is in Auckland. There is no reason to have 'Auckland' in brackets in the title column for the tower. Mousing over the 'Sky Tower' link shows it is Auckland and the last column confirms this. The actual title of the article for the Sky Tower doesn't have to be replicated in the list table. However I am happy for you to provide evidence in Wikipedia guidelines to demonstrate this otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynthehode (talk • contribs) 9:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

My edit summary was quite clear. In the table as it is currently (after my edit), there is no mention of Auckland in the name of the tower. The link is merely piped so that clicking it (or mousing over it, as you said), directs the reader to Sky Tower (Auckland). I don't see why you would want the entry for this tower in the list to direct the reader to the disambiguation page, Sky Tower, which references a number of other, unrelated structures. Neither of my edits changed the readable content of the article, as you are suggesting. The guideline for link piping can be found here. In future, I suggest checking the content of an article before reverting, rather than just using the revision diff to make an assumption. --timsdad ^(talk) 10:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I thought you were the editor who kept adding 'Auckland' in brackets after the name of the tower. If you made 'Sky Tower' a link to the correct page then this is, of course, great for correct navigation rather than it going to a disambiguation page. Looks like we are both happy with this outcome?? Robynthehode (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am that editor, but the "(Auckland)" I added is not visible as it is in the piped part of the link, just like you did with the link to my user page when you first thanked me in this talk post. It doesn't matter - we are both happy with the outcome. Cheers, timsdad ^(talk) 10:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My inital revert was for the very reason the bracketed 'Auckland' was showing in the table immediately after the name of the tower when I looked at it. Will look into link piping more thoroughly. The end result improves the article. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Change country section of Hong Kong buildings to Hong Kong instead of China

Hong Kong is a semi-autonomous region of China. Due to historical reasons, many organisations and governments treat Hong Kong separately instead of China. This includes Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. Data of Hong Kong is also separate from China like GDP, Gini, HDI, and even count of coronavirus cases. Hong Kong has its own internet TLD, country code, passport, currency, official language and Olympic team which is so different from China. It is therefore not suitable to use the Chinese flag in Hong Kong buildings data as this is a common practice internationally. Changing the "country" column into "county/territory" or "country/region" can also suitable in this case.

Alexanderlam128 (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at talk:List of tallest buildings regarding the 'Hong Kong' or 'China' dispute. Thanks. Robynthehode Robynthehode (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for consistency between pages

Contrary information is given on different related Wikipedia pages.
The ‘History of the world's tallest buildings’ page gives Old St Paul’s as the first structure taller than the Great Pyramid but both the ‘List of tallest buildings and structures’ and the ‘List of tallest freestanding structures’ both give Lincoln as the first structure taller than it.
Can someone who knows what they’re talking about make these pages internally consistent? Jjc2002 (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Jjc2002[reply]

Abraj Al Bait and Canton Tower out of order in image

In the silhouette image that currently tops this page, Abraj al Bait is displayed as being taller than the Canton Tower. However, the Canton Tower is a touch taller at 604m compared to the 601m of the Clock Towers. A new image should be created that reflects this proper order (in addition to the needed addition of Merdeka 118). Aapehill (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]