Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

St. Mary's Church, Stralsund[edit]

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

Where is Nasinneula[edit]

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

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

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of tallest bridges in the world which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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


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

Tallest Twin Towers[edit]

In the second Table “Tallest destroyed structures by category, not surpassed by existing structures”, The category “Twin Towers” lists “One & Two World Trade Center” in New York, USA, with height 417/415 meters. However the main table (existing structures) correctly lists “Petronas Twin Towers” in Malaysia as tallest with height of 452 meters. Hence the “tallest destroyed” should not list the “One & Two World Trade Center” as these were not taller than Petronas “Petronas Twin Towers” (or the table title should not mentions “…not surpassed by existing structures” Henrik

Can we delete the Rank column?[edit]

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

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

Göbekli Tepe[edit]

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

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

Centralized page move discussion[edit]

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

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

Thank you,

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

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

Tallest single family homes[edit]

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

Thanks for taking your query to the talk page. Sorry for the lack of explanation for my deletion of the content. I pressed the 'save changes' before I meant to and had not time to then come here to explain before now. As to the inclusion of this information, you have provided no reliable verifiable sources for this inclusion. I have serious doubts about its notability and veracity. If you can provide correct sources then it may have a minimal place in this article but not to the extent that was previously included Robynthehode (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Robynthehode, The sources are in the linked articles. I considered what I put here a short lead summary or list-type entry - both of which usually don't require refs if the refs are included in the target articles. MB 00:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I still cannot find any references to the buildings being the tallest of their kind. In the article for Antilia as far as I could see there is no mention that it is the tallest in the world, only a mention of its height. If there is no external reference to that it is the tallest then any inclusion in this article is original research. Furthermore the articles structure is such that each type of 'tallest building' is in the main list and does not have paragraph detail included. To do so for all types of tallest building would make the list unwieldy and transform it from a list style article to a descriptive article. Robynthehode (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Robynthehode, here is a link [1] that is a ref in Falcon Nest that says Falcon Nest claims to be the tallest house in the world, but the tallest is really Antilia (building). It's not OR. You're right that there is no mention in Antilia of it being the tallest - I will add that into the article. Not sure what you mean by "paragraph" detail, all I added 1-2 sentences that could go into a Remarks column if a table were used instead. A table would be consistent with the rest of the article, I didn't want to go to the trouble of making one without testing if anyone objected to this info being in the article first. MB 02:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Still inline references are needed. Agree with Robynthehode, that better is to add it to main list rather than creating separate section.Jklamo (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Reference looks good but the entry should be part of the list rather than in a separate section. The amount of detail you included in the original edit does not need to be included just the relevant information as per the table. Using 'Single family home' as the title for the type of entry would be fine as this is used in the source and is sufficiently descriptive. If you want to go ahead and include in the table list as per my suggestion I have no objections although you might want to wait to see in any other editors want to comment, disagree or agree with what I have said Robynthehode (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
It sounds like you are proposing adding just Antilia into the table as tallest 'Single family home'. Though that may be technically accurate since it is a private home, it includes room for a staff of 600. Which is why others give the title to Falcon Nest, since it is designed for only a family and is much closer to the definition of SFH most people would probably think of. I added a new section to be able to explain this - just adding Antilia to the table leaves a big hole. Since I haven't found any other coverage of the subject (like a list beyond these two), I didn't think a separate article on Tallest SFHs was warranted. Any suggestion? Maybe add Antilla to the table with a footnote discussing the two ways to count tallest SFO? Or adding two categories (i.e. SFH with staff quarters & SFH without staff quarters)? MB 16:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The decision of what to include or exclude is all about the sources. The previous source you gave stated that Antilia is the tallest but makes no mention of staff accommodation or the fact that this house also seems to have a business function as per this source [2]. It is not up to us as editors to analyse the sources beyond whether the information in the sources is accurate, NPOV, and supports the text in the list or article. Wikipedia advice at Conflicting sources doesn't seem to give clear advice in this case (except for the criteria already stated) because the definition of the type of building is one that is currently only in the sources stated and is not clear on whether to include staff accommodation or not. I think it is probably up to us as editors to make a decision (by consensus) as to which building should be the main one and maybe include the other one, as you suggest, in the notes. Including both in the main list may be too much. Robynthehode (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Riga Radio and TV Tower[edit]

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

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tallest buildings and structures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

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

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

Forgotten building in Thailand.[edit]

Hi, think you have forgotten the in Thailand. It is around 300 meter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Jetavanaramaya, Sri Lanka[edit]

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

Observation deck of Shanghai Tower[edit]

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


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

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

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