Jump to content

Talk:List of tallest statues

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.236.80.152 (talk) at 01:53, 20 August 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Statues that need adding

Recent improvements to the table seem to have made adding items with visual editing unfeasible and I'm less proficient with source editing. I thought that for now I would make a note here of statues that I think need adding:

This giant robot statue in a recently opened Chinese theme park is reportedly 174 feet tall, and I'd say it definitely looks it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/china/article-5023575/Spectacular-pictures-China-s-1-billion-VR-park.html
This statue of Durga in Mauritius is reportedly 33 metres tall.
https://rightlog.in/2017/10/maa-durga-murti-mauritius-01/

SMcM (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both statues may be candidates for inclusion but neither source is reliable. Also please put new posts at the bottom of the page. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for putting this in the wrong place. I didn't post those articles here as sources, but to demonstrate what I was talking about- as opposed to just describing statues and providing no link. However personally I don't see why the Dail Mail is an unsatisfactory source in this context, we are hardly in the realm of 'fake news' here. Regardless the same facts can be found in many articles which can be found when you search 'Guizhou transformer statue', though a lot of these are citing the Dail Mail one and potentially the others have taken the information from it without recognising that. I think you can probably be too choosy about sources for a page like this where the facts aren't that well documented. I'm sure you could find worse sources on this page SMcM (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Birth of the New World(estatua de colon)in Arecibo Puerto Rico Josean 13 (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valle de los Caidos

The Valle de los Caídos statue, with 150 m height is not in the list.

Not is an statue; is a cross.
Takashi Kurita ~ Hablame compañero 13:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Crosses are not statues, by any reasonable definition. Someone added in the Valle de los Caídos in spite of this; I'll remove it. Rockypedia (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volgograd

The Volgograd Motherland statue is mentioned twice with differing heights. Can someone please choose the correct one and delete the other?12.214.172.85 11:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image "Approximate heights of various notable statues:" shows the Statue of liberty with plinth, and the Volgograd Motherland without plinth. In actual fact the Statue of Liberty is much smaller than Mother Russia. Rather misleading image Chuck Norris (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another Statue

There is a 20m (66ft) Statue of Sam Houston in Huntsville, Tx that should be added to the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sam_Houston_Huntsville_Statue.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.37.168 (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There is also a 85 and a foot tall statue of a iron man in Chisholm Minnesota. It was built because of the history of the area, that is the iron range. It is the 3rd tallest free standing statue in the United States so we need it on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.212.220 (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those statues are big enough to make the list. The Iron Man in Chisholm Minesota includes a an 11 metre statue that is part of a larger monument- 11 metres is far too small to make the list, there are many statues at that height. 30 metres, the current minimum height, is supposed to have been the height of the Colossus of Rhodes. In the modern day perhaps even this is too low a bar, as the list is already well over a hundred long and the number of giant statues is increasing rapidly. That 20 metre statue of Sam Houston is impressively tall in its own right, but its also not big enough to make the list. SMcM (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was in Japan a few weeks ago, and passed a city called Kaga-onsen in the Ishikawa Prefecture by train. There I got a glimpse of a huge statue (would estimate between 50-60m high). I only got one bad photo of the statue, and I cant seem to find many good ones, or much info about it on google either. But the statue is absolutley high enough to make the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svanainposition (talk • contribs) 00:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two statues

One is in Volgograd and second is in Kiev (Ukraine). They share similar name. --Yonkie 18:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Statue

The tallest Ganesha statue in the world is located in my home state. I can give free pictures too. http://theemerald.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/ganesha-tall-and-big/ My question would be, does it qualify? I do not know how the height is calculated -- Dandekar (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bingling

Is there a typo in the caption for the Bingling statue? It says "Buddha of the Blingling temple, China" rest of the article refers to it as the Bingling temple (note the extra l in caption). DotCOMmie 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tallest Buddha?

Near Monywa city in Myanmar recently was constructed a Standing Buddha statue, that is claimed to be tallest or 2-tallest in the world. Although the inauguration ceremony still wasn't held (the works inside the statue were not finished yet, when I saw it June 2007), but it has already reached its final height of 130 m (115 m without the base). you can see more details here: http://www.myanmarplg.com/eng/Myanmar_News/myanmar_news.html#95 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.252.69 (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Spring Temple Buddha

I have searched the internet for hours now, but I can´t find a single website or image of the "Spring temple Buddha". No other site that lists the tallest statues, mention this one. The only picture I´ve seen of it is the satellite-photo. Can anyone tell where I can find regular photo´s of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svanainposition (talk • contribs) 23:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


There's some images of the statue in the page of the temple itself: http://zhai.fosss.org/goto_zy.asp?id=5421 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royut (talk • contribs) 03:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hermannsdenkmal

The statue of 53.46m is missing completely? --89.53.7.225 (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added (with the height of the statue itself, 26,57 m). --89.53.7.225 (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha statues

Why are they building all these massive Buddha statues? And now they are gonna build another gigantic one in Uttar Pradesh and even a few others in other parts of the world. I mean why? There aren't so many gigantic 50+ meter statues of Jesus or of any other person.
I'm simply curious about the reason behind building all those gigantic statues of Buddhas? Could you explain it to me in a paragraph right below this? Thx! --Topk (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Buddhism, the making of Buddha-images is generally considered to create merit. Of course, they wouldn't necessarily need to be 50+ meters high! This aspect can be largely be explained in terms of competitiveness, and a desire for prestige and attention. For example, the Maitreya Project is intended to bring peace to Tibet; fulfull the wishes of the FPMT's lamas; attract attention and prestige for that organization; and not incidentally, be taller than China's Leshan Big Buddha. Chinese Buddhists, not to be outdone by Tibetans, have apparently just built a Vairocana statue that is even taller than the Maitreya Project's planned Maitreya. The same kind of behavior can also be observed with temple-construction. --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.55.9 (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Country names

As the country name merely describes the statue's location, I think we can omit the flag. -- User:Docu


Wikifying

For consistency, I'd wikify the table as follows:

  • 1st column (name of statue): each name even if the statue has no article yet
  • 2nd column (depicts): every occurrence, except the frequent "Buddha", "Jesus"
  • 3rd column (location): all locations
  • 4th column (country of location): none

-- User:Docu

About minimal height

20 m. has been mantained so far as the minimal height for this list since it's the lowest height range that can be fairly supported in an almost complete way. To put one or two statues below that for X-random reasons will break the flow of the list with "jumps" in the info since most probably, there will be no follow up with figures in the ranges of 19 m, 18 m, 17 m, etc..

And while the chosen height might seem arbitrary the list "must" have a limit somewhere and frankly statues below 20 m. turn inconsequential in a list where the principal function is to display the highest statues in the world, hence the name. There's no reason why should it be reduced to include just famous heritage sites or any other minor factor of discrimination since then the whole point of the list would be lost. There's already an article just named "List of Statues" (that can be found in the references of this article) that follows exclusively notoriety, historical and artistical importance as the listing factor.

In Wikipedia there's articles with lists of churches, stadiums, pyramids, hotels, palaces, etc., by height and then by country... sometimes even by city. And yet none of them canibalize over the main List of Buildings by Height. There's no reason why this List of Statues by Height should be any different.

Royut (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting up the issue on the talk page. The reasons that I have put up Bahubali statue on the list are not x-random reasons but valid reasons, which I expect that you may not be aware, so I am listing them down:-
I will not talk of the heritage, antiquity, notability and the fame aspect. As you have pointed out – “principal function is to display the highest statues in the world” Now, this statue is the worlds tallest monolith statue and should be vital to any list of tallest statues. Now it seems odd and unjustified, if a limit of height is fixed in such manner to exclude the worlds tallest monolith statue from the list of tallest statues.
I am sure there is nothing sacrosanct about the 20m limit. The limit can always be revised if such limit excludes something important and vital to the list. I suggest a limit of 50 feet.--Anish (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that instead of lowering the minimal height acceptance to 50 ft and opening a can of worms (since it would be really hard to follow up figures of that height considering that we'll be bordering "acceptable height to make lots of fiberglass figures". It could be added a separate subsection (as the Disappeared and Planned ones) where statues are listed by distinction: tallest monolith statue, copper statue, gold statue, largest mass, etc.. Royut (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is one alternative view that can always be explored. But I don't think it will open a can of worms as a limit will be fixed. By being extra cautious we cannot deny the legitimate claim.--Anish (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still going with the subsection idea. It's the one that will not break the reliability of the list as it is and the more suited way to give the information.Royut (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not inclined towards sub-section idea, though I am not rejecting it totally. Even if we agree to it, how do we go about it? How does adding it to the main list break the reliability. It's already there since last two days and not hampered its reliability. One suggestion. Let us wait and watch further, if the reliability is broken in near future and then we can think of further solution.--Anish (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By breaking reliability I mean that the list is now somehow saying that from the 20 m figures, the next one coming in size is the Gomateswara with 18 m. Something that is not true and shouldn't be the way for Wikipedia. Even more, reaching the 25m - 20m, the list goes almost half-meter to half-meter down... the jump in 2m is clearly visible to anyone paying attention and will look suspicious.
Putting this, and other statues, under a banner of Special Mention or something, the same list is clear about the reasons for being included and pushes front their notoriety. Royut (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the inclusion is legitimate, then we should not be worried about difference being half a meter or 2 m or that it looks suspicious(?). The differerence with the last statue is not the criteria. Had anyone before tried to add any statue having height between 20m and 18m?--Anish (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lowest statue currently on the list is not even 11 metres though, should this be removed?Halbared (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I see that there are quite a few in this 10-20 metre area.Halbared (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Material?

How about adding a column with the different materials used to build the individual statues? That would be relevant, in my opinion. — Lasse Havelund (p · t · c) 21:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsches Eck

It is 37 m high, should be added... Deutsches Eck 88.134.194.245 (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the Statue itself is only 14 m high —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.180.244.232 (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Monument to the Forefathers

Statue located in Plymouth, Massachusetts; stands at 81 ft (25 m). This would make it qualify for the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forefathers_Monument —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.193.12 (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the statue itself is only 36 ft (<12 m). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.38.102 (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hong Guang Shan Dafo

Anybody has more information about this buddha? Looks tall, but I cannot find any information about it (except in chinese). 43°52′52″N 87°36′49″E / 43.881145°N 87.613478°E / 43.881145; 87.613478 (Hong Guang Shan Dafo(Urumqi, China))

http://xinjiang.abang.com/od/jingdianxianlu/a/hongguangshan.htm and http://www.liecheng.com/lq/20080701-6776.html say its 38,8 m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.84.48 (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Spring Temple Buddha

I have some doubts about the location of the Spring Temple Buddha. Perhaps there was confusion between Lushan, in the province of Henan, and Lu shan = Mount Lu (shan means mount in chinese), in the Jiangxi Province. The page http://zhai.fosss.org/goto_zy.asp?id=5421 should tell the exact location, but chinese is a language I don't know. This matter should be verified, the two locations are far from each other too. Greetings, --Gabodon (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Geo Tag points definitly to a Place in Henan, compare to [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.234.219 (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Independence War Victory Column of Tallin

looks nice, but is probably no Statue. Should be deleted?


Worker and Kolkhoznitsa

It says in the list that it's in restoration. The monument has already been resored and was unveiled on top of its new pavillion on December 4th. Here's the current photo: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Worker_and_Kolkhoznitsa_2009.jpg --SergeiXXX (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Mount Rushmore

Shouldn't it be on the list and on top too? It's a statue made out of a damn mountain, surely it's among the tallest in the world?--SergeiXXX (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is on the list, but with the carvings height, 18m, not the entire mountains height. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.180.244.232 (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

African Renaissance Monument

Fairly sure this should be on here too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Renaissance_Monument

Valle de los Caidos, Spain

150M cross. Should be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.209.134 (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some smaller statues at the bottom of the cross, which might be added, but not the cross itself with its 150m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.84.48 (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thiruvalluvar Statue

This statue has been moved and dublicated several times in the list now. The main article says it´s 29m heigh and 40.5m with pedestal, so we should put it in with 29m, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmo78 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the 40m double entry again today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.180.244.232 (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed th 40m double entry again today... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.84.48 (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

double Entry again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.180.244.232 (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Years later, this is still an ongoing concern. Unbelievable. For whoever keeps pushing for the total height to be counted for this entry, "the pedestal being an integral part of the monument" does not make it part of the statue. THE STATUE ITSELF IS 29 M TALL. This is not about which are the prettiest most meaningful monuments out there, is -as best as it can be made- a list about the pure simple cold fact of how tall the statues are. Come on, the list is already bit clouded with a fair number of ambiguity and unsourced details, lets try to not make it worse by purporsely misrepresenting the data we do know. Royut (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq?

There was a Saddam Hussein statue destroyed, [2], and The Hands of Victory. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.98.44 (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sainte-Hospice

There's a 11 meters statue of the Virgin Mary at the Chapelle Sainte-Hospice in Saint-Jean-Cap-Ferrat :

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Jean-Cap-Ferrat#La_chapelle_Saint-Hospice

Picture :

http://imgur.com/n2tGN.jpg

loulan (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highest statue?

It says here that the Hanuman of Shimla is the highest statue of the world (meaning, at the highest altitude). It doesn't make much sense to me, since obviously there are statues at higher altitudes; for example, the Christ the Redeemer of the Andes (3,832 metres above sea level), which is not in this list because it is not big enough, but it counts as a statue, doesn't it? Or consider Rongbuk Monastery in Tibet, which sits at 5,100 metres above sea level, and surely contains some statues of Buddha... I believe the original quote of the Indian press is that it is "the largest statue at the highest altitude", surpassing the Cristo Redentor of the Corcovado, but even that statement sounds arbitrary: where do you put the limit on statue size vs altitude? You could equally affirm that "the largest statue at the highest altitude" is the Spring Temple Buddha, since obviously there are no larger statues at any higher altitudes; or you could find out out which is the very highest place of the Tibet where there is a statue, no matter what size, and also say it is "the largest statue at the highest altitude"... El monty (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more. I guess this list could almost go on for ever...

http://www.kandou10.jp/en/spot/spot68_e03_3.html his Great Buddha was built by a businessman from Nagoya, Mr. Saikichi Yamada, in 1927. It commemorates the marriage of Emperor Showa. It is made of reinforced concrete and is 18.8m tall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifu_Great_Buddha Height of Statue: 13.7 metres (44.9 ft) Weavehole (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)weavehole[reply]

http://cavinglizsea.blogspot.com/2011/12/hanuman-statue-batu-caves.html This statue should be added as well; Hanuman status standing at 15 metres (50 feet) in Batu Caves, Gombak, Malaysia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.143.136.237 (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a statue in venezuela "el diablo de yare"

Is a estatue in a theme park called "the venezuela de antier" in Merida state in Venezuela a think is between 15-20 mts tall check this links http://www.flickr.com/photos/donperucho/3118491992/ http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8maqNQX8ZZo/Rn8eCRb3hkI/AAAAAAAAAmI/Vxgg9JzkGU0/IM000103.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.126.38 (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monumental Virgen de Guadalupe Xicotepec.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Monumental Virgen de Guadalupe Xicotepec.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Springtemplebuddha.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Springtemplebuddha.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iron Man Chisholm MN.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Iron Man Chisholm MN.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extant or historical?

Is this list limited to still-standing statues, or does it include documented historical statues that no longer survive? cmadler (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, that's what I get for not looking farther down the page. cmadler (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:RodinaVolgograd.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:RodinaVolgograd.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo replaced -- OverQuantum (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bamiyan "destroyed by the Taliban"

That was the initial story. But there have been stories for some time now that the Pakistani ISI provided the heavy artillery and the demolitions experts and the Gatorade and whatever else was required.
Maybe the article should not be assigning blame for the time being.
Varlaam (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:09-02-06--ChristofOzarks.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:09-02-06--ChristofOzarks.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minotauro in Jerez

Not appear Minotauro in Jerez de la Frontera; 22 m This sculpture represents the Minotaur after her fighting with Theseus, defeated attempts to a desperate escape to the island of Crete. The giant sculpture is oriented to Crete Takashi Kurita ~ Hablame compañero 13:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making the heights sortable.

Some genius, putdown all the heights and their conversions manually i.e. 40&nbsp;m (132&nbsp;ft). This causes the tables not to sort correctly by height. What they should have used is the {{ntsc}} template. It has this format: {{ntsc|62|m|ft|0|abbr=on}}. I've fixed the over 40m table. If anyone has the time, could you fix the others.

File:Mother Armenia, Yerevan, Day.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mother Armenia, Yerevan, Day.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mother Armenia, Yerevan, Day.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lenin-statue-in-Fremont.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lenin-statue-in-Fremont.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Lenin-statue-in-Fremont.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Our Lady of the Rockies.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Our Lady of the Rockies.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Our Lady of the Rockies.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monumento a san juan.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Monumento a san juan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Monumento a san juan.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notre-Dame-de-la-Garde, Marseille

The statue atop the church stands 11.2 meters high. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Why are some heights inclusive of pedestals, others not?

Some entries (like the Spring Temple Buddha) include the pedestal height in the total height column, while others (like the Statue of Liberty) do not. Can we get some consistency on this, or is there some reason that some statues include the pedestals and others don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.208.244.57 (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

Actual location for "Iron Man" statue in Chisholm, MN, USA is:

47° 28′ 53.04″ N, 92° 53′ 46.36″ W

—24.159.204.242 (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, and I've also emended the coordinates in the article Iron Man (statue). Thanks for pointing out the error. Deor (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Biggest Marble Statue Of Shri Shirdi Sai Baba "7feet"

Worlds Biggest Marble Statue Of Shri Shirdi Sai Baba "7feet" Loacated At J.P Nagar 7th phase Bangalore 78------ INDIA..........more will be updated shorlty plz contact ----9686866299 for more.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaiguru6 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World's Largest Axe

This, World's Largest Axe, might belong on this list. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Nebuchadnezzar

Excepting for the story in the Bible, in the Book of Daniel, which is considered apocryphal for Bible Scholars, there's no evidence supporting that such a statue really existed. I think it should be removed, other case Wikipedia might seem partial to Christian or Jewish faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fausto.cervantes (talk • contribs) 18:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed it. Thanks for noticing that. Rockypedia (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Monroe statue

Forever Marilyn gives this statue's height as 26 ft (7.9 m). Since the cut seems to be 5 meters, this should be included. 82.141.117.146 (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the tallest

It says that the Spring Temple Buddha is 128 meters including the 20 meters lotus throne. Then in the second one which is the Laykyun Setkyar it says that it's 116 meters excluding the 13.5 meters throne, for the whole monument would be 130 meters. Shouldn't the Spring Temple Buddha be 108 meters, then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbbeto (talk • contribs) 22:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moai of Rapa Nui **** Antiquity, Medieval, Modern Categories?

These should definitely be on the list if anyone has the time to add them. Perhaps there should be an antiquity category? Medieval and modern? Busybeez (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request 'Height comparison of notable statues' image removal

Wiki header says its "list of statues by height, considering only the figure itself, without any pedestal or plinth included in the measurement." But the image shows statutes with pedestals (though arbitrarily not plinths). It gets the height of the Rodina statue wrong: image shows top of statue (the sword) to top of plinth at 91m when its really 85-87m (this article has it at 87m). Besides the biggest statue none from the rest of the top 10 are included as "notable"- in a list dominated by Buddhist and Hindu statues. Its seems to have been created for other articles (and is in any case erroneous- and should be looked into alteration/deletion elsewhere). Any objections? 100.1.46.6 (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List is broken if you try to sort by 'completed'

Just wanted to let you guys know, since I'm not sure how to fix it. First two sections are fine, but the rest are messed up in some way. The third section puts two post-2000 statues at the top of the list when you sort by oldest, which makes no sense. Also, the Ming Dynasty statue should be below the statue in 694 when sorting by oldest (Ming Dynasty was 1368-1644). The fourth section puts a Feb, 2013 statue above every other statue (except for The Sphinx) when sorting by oldest. And, the 3 Tang Dynasty statues should be above the 692 statue (Tang Dynasty was 618-907), unless people can cite a more exact date that puts all 3 below the 692 statue when sorting by oldest. The fifth section has a 1264 BC statue put below a statue from 1151 (I presume CE) when sorting by oldest. Then, 4 pre-1000 statues are put below most of the other statues when sorting by oldest, when they should be above all of the statues except for the statue from BC. Finally, the sixth section, which has quite a few issues. If only one section gets fixed, please be this one. Sorting by oldest, a statue from 1966-1976 is put above statues from 10th century. And then at the bottom, it's just a big mess. 8 statues ranging from 470 - 2007 are all bunched together when sorting by oldest. If anybody has the time to sort out this mess, that would be amazing! --2602:304:CF8F:DB90:6175:3DEF:A467:D9D8 (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again about minimal height

The list just huge. I think it is necessary to limit the list to 25/30 meters. --Insider (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please comment on this. The list is dimensionless now. Other wiki's uses minimal height: lt (85 m), nl (85), de (40), uk (40), pt (35), es (30), it (25), ru (25), fr (10), ro (10), tr (10), zh (10). I will set a minimum height of 30 meters, if you do not find opponents. --Insider (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
30 meters is very reasonable, as the lemma is "tallest" (not: monumental) statues. Recently I have set the parameter for the German article on 30 meters, too. --Theophilus77 (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 external links on List of statues by height. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of statues by height. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of the highest statues. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible page move

Should it be:

?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm pretty sure tallest is the proper word in this situation. Whether or not the word the needs to be included is a different matter. The two may seem interchangeable but wikt:tall and wikt:high show slight differences. There is also this (note it is stackexchange which is not technically reliable by our standards) that explains the difference.

    Tallness is the length of an object that it typically upright -- an absolute measure. Or it is a relative measure: comparison of such lengths.

    Height is a distance "above" an origin position or surface.

    So the Wiktionary link and the stackexchange thread makes me think that tallest is the right word in this situation. --Majora (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thank you kindly. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Birth of the New World

It's a bit inconceivable that this statue is nowhere to be found in this page, not on the actual list nor on the "upcoming" section. Since it was dedicated in 2016, it's time to include it in the list. 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:78 (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This statue was added, but later removed, on 13 March 2018. It's a noteworthy statue, but does not meet the list criteria (height of statue, not including pedestal, plinth, or platform).Hadron137 (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be added to the list since it's real. I'm a puerto rican and I felt offended by this action and I imagine many others felf the same. So can someone please put it back for the love of puerto ricans🇵🇷. CarlosPR5 (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They keep removing it and saying it's "not a statue" but it is CarlosPR5 (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They keep removing it and saying it's "not a statue" but it is CarlosPR5 (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of tallest statues. 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: 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) 18:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Mary contradiction.

Currently (2017-07-20) the article contains both the following :-

Virgen de la Paz (Virgin of Peace) Mary Trujillo, Trujillo Venezuela 46.7 metres (153 ft) Work of the sculptor Manuel de la Fuente. Tallest sculpture of the Virgin Mary in the world. 1983

Bunda Maria Assumpta Virgin Mary Semarang, Indonesia Indonesia 42 metres (138 ft) The world's tallest Virgin Mary statue. 2015

One description must be incorrect. AnnaComnemna (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. Bunda Maria Assumpta is 42 meters tall including the pedestal. Without the pedestal it's only 23 meters tall.[1] So the Bunda Maria statue would be removed. HouseGecko (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of tallest statues. 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: 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) 10:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Tallest Christ statue

The one in the brazilian city of Elói Mendes should be considered the tallest since it's 39.5 meters tall. As can be seen here:

http://www.lavras24horas.com.br/portal/eloi-mendes-cristo-mais-alto-do-planeta-e-noticia-nacional/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.36.218.153 (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of tallest statues. 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: 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) 22:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of tallest statues. 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: 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) 06:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter the Great Statue

Why is the Peter the Great Statue missing? It was decided not to be a statue? Still, its article considers it a statue. 91.154.188.185 (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a momument not a statue as per the definition of statue used in that article Robynthehode (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is a statue? "The statue article tells A statue is a sculpture, representing one or more people or animals. Peter the Great monument does indeed include Peter the Great in it. And, since you mention "definition of statue", the 50m Statuia Tineretului does not have any people or animals represented(or if it does, I don't see that). 91.154.188.185 (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well we can discuss what statue sculptures to include in this list and reach a consensus as to what to include and exclude. My view is that the inclusion criteria should follow very closely the definition given in the statue article. This would exclude other monuments or sculptures that have other elements other than people or animals. Such a narrow definition keeps the list manageable. Other 'statues' can be in a list of tallest monuments or sculptures. Robynthehode (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Peter the Great monument seems to be commonly accepted as a statue, the wiki article's name even has "statue".
And the entry for Statuia Tineretului says it depicts "Youth flame". In which way a "youth flame" is people or animal? 85.76.106.156 (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with these. 85.76.106.156 (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is a bust a statue?

Does a bust qualify as a statue for the purpose of this list? Three works of art (Youth Mao Zedong Statue, Adiyogi Shiva statue, and Atatürk Mask) have recently been removed, but I'm wondering if this is justified. Should otherwise qualified busts be included in this list? Hadron137 (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to state your position beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~.
  • Oppose the removal. Bust is still a statue i.e. statue of a bust versus statue of full body. Criteria is clear, any statue above the 30m minus the plinth. This "bust versus full body" is a new rule being inserted. ATTN ALL: Dont remove without consensus. Before you can implement such rules, please seek consensus first, i.e. add these three back in for now. You can remove later only if you have consensus to do so. Thanks.
    PS.1: Oxford dictionary says life-size or bigger Bust is a statue: Oxford dictionary says that a statue is "a carved or cast figure of a person or animal, especially one that is life-size or larger" and it further says about life-size is "Of the same size as the person or thing represented". Bust is well within these definitions by oxford dictionary. This is also reconfirmed by the wikidiff, which says that the bust or figurine are the hyponym for the statue, i.e. a bust is a more "specific" type of statue. In the Comparison of English dictionaries, the definition by Oxford dictionary prevails over and above all other dictionaries because it is the oldest dictionary since 1895 and its version has the highest number of english words (355,000) among the major dictionaries. In comparison, the Webster dictionary first came out in 1966 has maximum 263,000 words only.
    PS.2: Numerous editors think bust is a statue that is why they keep adding busts to this article, those busts statues can not be suddenly rejected just by redefining new rules without consensus and based on the dictionary definition from a lower order/status dictionary (webster).
    PS.3: Better be inclusivist, less heartache, more happiness. We do not need to get into "mine is bigger than yours". Let all editors be happy by having their busts in. It makes more editors/people/nations happy. Exclusion brings more edit wars and heartache. Happiness is better than unnecessary stress. Make yourself the cause of someone's happiness. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While busts should remain the reasons for them remaining should be based on encyclopaedic reasons. The first requirement in Wikipedia is whether busts have been stated as statues in reliable sources. Second if there is differences between sources then a consensus between editors must be reached as to inclusion or exclusion. Neither an aggregate view of the majority of the editors nor being inclusivist or the happiness of editors are reasons for exclusion or inclusion. We must follow Wikipedia guidelines and reliable sources about the definition of a bust and statue is the starting place. Robynthehode (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced The three previously removed busts have been added back to the list.Hadron137 (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this, add it in if it meets the criteria, if not then please explain why

Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main focus of List of tallest statues is existing statues. The Rama statue may certainly be added to the list, but it seems from the link that it is a proposed (vision) statue, and there are no firm plans at this time. As a point of reference, the List of future tallest buildings article has criteria that specify the definition of planned. I think a similar approach should be used for this list; either construction has begun, or permits have been approved. As it stands now, however, there's nothing forbidding the inclusion of the proposed Rama statue. Hadron137 (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the clear definitions and criteria on the top of talkpage

Question: What is the definitions of statue and criteria for inclusion? I have answered it in the "Is a bust a statue?" above.

Please add it the definition on the top of talkpage. This will provide transparency, avoid editing disputes and any manipulations by people inventing impromptu rules, and any potential for misuse, etc. Until then, all edits must be treated in goodfaith as long as height is above 30m above the plinth. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pie chart, or Table?

ChinaList of the tallest statues in IndiaJapanTaiwanBrazilThailandMalaysiaMexicoOther: 31
  •   China: 34
  •   India: 23
  •   Japan: 20
  •   Taiwan: 10
  •   Brazil: 5
  •   Thailand: 4
  •   Malaysia: 4
  •   Mexico: 3
  •   Other: 31
As of 2018, the main table includes 138 statues of height 30 m (98 ft) or taller. The countries with three or more entries in the list are represented here.

Which option is preferred for displaying the countries with the most tall statues? The existing article uses a table, but perhaps a pie chart is better?

Rank Country Number of
statues
1  China 34
2  India 23
3  Japan 20
4  Taiwan 10
5  Brazil 5
6  Thailand 4
7  Malaysia 4
8  Mexico 3
- Others 31
(Total) 138

Should the table be replaced with a pie chart? What are the pro's and con's of each method? Hadron137 (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to state your position beginning a new line in this section with *'''Table''' or *'''Pie''', then sign your comment with ~~~~.
Why is that table even needed at all? BLDM (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like the table. It's easier to read because you don't have to go looking which colour is which. Plus, it's conventional. And I think the table is necessary because it shows who has lots of statues. Nothing wrong with that. I'm sure visitors find it useful. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously table. Pie chart is too ugly. SifaV6 (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract art

File:Monumentul Tineretului.jpg
Monumentul Tineretului

The Tineretului statue is described by its designer as an abstract representation of a fallen angle. Does this qualify for the list's criteria of representing one or more people or animals (real or mythical), in their entirety or partially? To me, this monument does not look like a human form, but it is intended to represent one. Is that good enough, or does the work need to be an obvious representation. The monument is currently included in the list, but I'm not 100% sure it meets criteria. Feedback would be appreciated. Hadron137 (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the dilemma but I err on the side of simplicity. Keep the article's criteria as statues that are representational of the human form or animals rather than abstract. Happy to see arguments to the contrary. Robynthehode (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Susanto, Eko. "Patung Maria Assumpta, Ikon Baru Gua Maria Kerep Ambarawa". detiknews. Retrieved 2018-02-20.
  2. ^ UP government plans 100-metre statue of Lord Rama in Ayodhya, Times of India, 10 Oct 2017.

Stalin's former statue in Prague (15.5 m high)

Stalin Monument (Prague) should be included as well among destroyed statues. Ceplm (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No not tall enough for inclusion. Minimum height (without any plinth or other building support) is 30m as per criteria stated at top of list. Robynthehode (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong

I recently attempted to edit this page to have the Guanyin statue link to Hong Kong, rather than to the PRC page. I included a notification that the PRC grouping of statues include those from Hong Kong. Both were reverted because Hong Kong is not a country. That is true, but Hong Kong is generally listed separately from the PRC in international lists. If someone could explain why both of my edits are problematic, I would appreciate it. --PlasmaTwa2 19:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The country column should only show the country (based on the reliable source - the UN). Hong Kong can be listed separately for some lists (a list of world currencies) but not ones which are not relevant. Geographical location is not relevant in this context. Of course mention that the statue is located in the region of Hong Kong is not a problem if it is placed in the relevant column Robynthehode (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with the logic behind your source, because the UN does not recognize Taiwan as its own country and yet it is included under the incorrect name no less (I should stress that I believe Taiwan should be listed as Taiwan, but that inherently undermines your reasoning). From a quick look, I have not found any real guideline on whether or not to list it as Hong Kong or China in lists such as this. For instance, list of tallest buildings lists it as China, but List of tallest buildings in Asia lists it as Hong Kong. List of cities with the most high-rise buildings does as well. I also note that you were previously involved with a similar dispute on the list of cities with the most skyscrapers page, and I am curious if the same logic there applies to here given Hong Kong's independence in regard to civil laws. Perhaps the same compromise should be used here: list it as Hong Kong, China with the HK flag, and include a note in the list of countries at the top that the Chinese tally includes Hong Kong. --PlasmaTwa2 20:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan is a special case due to the position of China on Taiwan. No one disputes that Hong Kong is a special admin region of China. So China is the country. The other lists re buildings has been an ongoing situation where a relative consensus was reached but other editors who have not engaged in discussion keep changing the 'country' to Hong Kong or even changing the column heading to 'Region' to fit their agenda. It is simple to place Hong Kong as the location in the 'Location' column. And as a clarification it may be useful to put a note saying the list contains statues from Hong Kong but I strongly disagree having the flag of Hong Kong in the country column or elsewhere. Robynthehode (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that people keep changing it to Hong Kong to fit an agenda. Rather it is a recognition that Hong Kong has independence and self-representation in several relevant areas, including in those related to architectural standards, and they are often listed as a distinct entity in many lists like this despite their lack of sovereignty. I have not seen a relative consensus in these other building lists since many differ from one another. Perhaps we need other people to give their sides of this issue, because I believe that the Hong Kong flag should be displayed, or at the least list it as Hong Kong, China as per the skyscraper page. --PlasmaTwa2 22:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Birth of the New World?PR

They keep removing it because they say it's a sculpture or it's a monument. Actually it is a statue, because statues are monuments. And you can check the definition of monument and it says "Examples of monuments include statues,". CarlosPR5 (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statues are a type of sculpture. They can be part of larger monuments. The monument you are talking about here is not mostly comprised of a statue- that is only a small part. The reason it is not included is that the statue part isn't nearly large enough to make the list (it isn't over 30 metres tall). This is being consistently applied- pedestals are not included in statue heights either. SMcM (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

faulty table formatting

There is a cleanup tag with the reason "faulty table formatting". What is faulty about the table? RJFJR (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. It seems fine to me. Hadron137 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing the tag. It was added by an IP address on 2019-08-17T16:00:56, the only edit the user ever made. They didn't explain it. It's been questioned since. I can't see anything wrong, either. The tag is just clutter at this point. Normal Op (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

tallest sculptures

I see that more than one sculpture has been removed from this list article because it doesn't meet the definition of "statue" that we are using right now. Is there some other article that lists "tallest sculptures" that would be more appropriate for those sculptures? --DavidCary (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can try looking in the two categories "Lists of tallest structures" and "Colossal statues". I notice that someone added Peter the Great Statue with this edit [3], and it probably doesn't qualify to be in THIS list because the statue of the man is probably smaller than 30 meters. I tried to google and find any measurements, but the only measure seems to be the entire statue including the base and the ships. Normal Op (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 18:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statue criteria

Hi there - which few editors decided to make their own standards for this article? The Birth of the New World statue is considered by many reliable sources to be the tallest statue in the Americas, and is thus at the top of List of tallest statues in the United States. Why should this article be different? Whose standards are you following? The criteria at the top of the article are not cited to any particular organization. I understand that a brick pedestal, etc. would not count, as it is usually not a sculpted piece, part of the artwork, but in this case, the entire statue/sculpture spans more than just the figure. For other even more abstract statues, this criteria of where the figure starts and the remaining portion ends could be impossible to follow. ɱ (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking your points to the talk page. As in many list articles criteria for inclusion are reached by consensus of editors working on that article. Wikipedia is partly about consensus. Once a consensus is reached about inclusion criteria then reliable sources are required for inclusion in that article. Secondly whether an entry in a list is in one list article doesn't mean it has to be in another due to the fact that criteria may have been reached that are different but in addition Wikipedia articles cannot be sources for other Wikipedia articles. See WP:UGC. To get to the specific structure in question - Birth of the New World - it is a monument or possibly sculpture. These are described and defined differently to statues. See Statue and Monument, Sculpture. Of course these categories are not mutually exclusive. It has been agreed by many editors that BOTNW does not belong in the List of tallest statues because the statue part of that monument does not fulfil the criteria for inclusion. You are welcome to discuss further providing reliable sources or you can create an list article about monuments if you want. Many statues fall outside the criteria including notable ones because the height criterion is not fulfilled. Regarding your point about where a statue begins and ends it is reasonably clear. Statues can be people or animals. Abstract statues do not fulfil this. Included is any part of the body/head of the person/animal but excludes anything else such as plinths, thrones, buildings, other structures types. If you want to challenge this consensus please do so - you have every right to do so but you will need to support your arguments with sources and reach a new consensus before changing anything in either article. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A long wall of text, but where is the evidence? You may agree with a few others in reverts or short discussions, but this is the entire talk page, no? Where is the collaborative agreement of a dozen+ editors on the exact criteria, and that BOTNW fails that? Where is the agreement that we can ignore multiple consistently reliable sources and create our own arbitrary standards of inclusion? Ridiculous. ɱ (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ɱ The criteria are based on the other Wikipedia articles as noted above (so please read them). The criteria are also based on previous discussions on this talk page. It is not incumbent on me to provide links to these discussions but for you to provide evidence for new consensus or to research the archives and counter my claim that there isn't a consensus. Fundamentally BOTNW is a monument with the statue that is part of it not tall enough to fulfil the currently stated height requirement (you could of course try to build a consensus to get that part changed). It should therefore be excluded from the list. And nice to see your dismissive remark about the wall of text - I was merely trying to answer your query point by point. I also included more general points because I don't know how experienced an editor you are so was trying to be helpful. So it you want to get BOTNW included in the article you will have to build a consensus. If you don't want to discuss it with me then check WP:3O or WP:RFC. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have any evidence at all to back up your claims. The so-called 'consensus' I guess is merely the definitions applied to the articles, which are general applicable terms, but don't exactly translate to the best way to manage this list. As well, this is original research or synthesis. If the statue has significant mentions in reliable sources as the tallest statue in the Americas, that's worthy of inclusion here, regardless of you and your buddies' unlisted, theoretical criteria. I don't need to prove anything to you. Without any clear evidence anywhere of a formal list of criteria based upon a reliable source's standards for inclusion, this is all a pet project wp:owned by a few nitpicky editors, and clear wp:synth. ɱ (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ɱ You are entitled to your view but you will still need a consensus to change this. Editors are perfectly entitled to come to consensus and define criteria for a list article otherwise list articles either become meaningless as they include anything or unmanageable because they include everything. That is not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Your discussion tone is not conducive to working this out between us so as I have already suggested take it to WP:3O or WP:RFC. I am happy to accept a new consensus (if there is one) but it must be developed according to Wikipedia policy. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico

... shouldn't be listed as a country in its own right but should be summarized with the US statues. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please Fix Table

Can someone please fix the table as someone has messed it up while editing it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_tallest_statues&oldid=973924834"