Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures/Archive 1

message: Just for the record, under the listing for the Cologne Cathedral, it notes that it still has the "tallest Gothic spires".  It hasn't had the tallest Gothic spire since 1890 when the Ulm Munster was completed.
----
The table that was previously on  (a previous page, elsewhere -- The Anome) was pretty much cut and paste in, including explanatory notes, from .  This is not only copyrighted (though the information, of course, isn't, the presentation certainly is), it is copyrighted by a potential competitor of Wikipedia--someone who has a financial motivation to try to sue us for violations like this.  Please be careful about things like this. --LMS
----
I guess it's slightly moot considering the original table has been removed, but if and when another "Tallest buildings" table gets added there should be a column indicating the building's classification; eg, "communication antenna" "office building" "tourist attraction" etc. That way all the various towers can be listed together, compared easily, and there will be no more war or strife in the world.
----
Good idea! I'll put that in talk:Worlds tallest structures -- The Anome
----
Boeing claims the world's biggest building is the 747 assmebly building. What size is it? --rmhermen
:According to , 200 million cubic feet. --Brion
----
Since the dawn of history man has been trying to build the 'tallest building', 'tallest tower' or 'tallest structure' in the world. There seems to be much prestige in being home to the worlds tallest. So much in fact that this is a major issue on the political agenda of many countries. Many towers claim the title, and many cities quarrel about who is the winner. 
----
How come nobody seems to be gunning for the title of "largest"? It seems to have been in American hands for quite a while. Rickyrab 03:35, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer your history question (which is really a technology question): no.  For Medium Wave and Long Wave communications (all that had commercial value in 1931), there is no benefit to being up high (just the opposite, in fact, although they didn't understand it then).  Although many of these stations were in fact on rooftops at the time, the sort of antennas used then (essentially just wires strung from one pole to another) would have been built only on flat-roofed structures.  In the US, such stations have almost all gone over to vertical radiators (I could count the exceptions on one hand).  In the mid-1930s, as VHF (also called "band I") first began to be exploited, broadcasters learned about the desirability of tall towers.  Armstrong did much of his early FM work (during the time when Sarnoff was still supporting him) from Empire, and the first commercial TV and FM stations in the US operated from there.  (NBC leased the entire 85th floor for both studios and transmitters.)  Most FM and TV broadcasting in the US started out on rooftops, but outside of the large cities where skyscrapers were economical, stations quickly learned that it was better to build dedicated structures.  During the 1950s, the title of tallest tower changed hands practically every few months, as there seemed to be no limit to the height at which a station could build.  (The limit today is about 600 m or 2000 ft.)  I believe the tallest self-supporting tower in the US today is the KCTV tower on Signal Hill in Kansas City.  18.24.0.120 17:42, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk 

message: According to the Guinness Book of World Records the CN Tower is actually considered to be the Tallest Building in the World.  It originally was not given this title when it opened June 28th (only tallest free-standing structure), 1975; however, in 1995 they revised their decision and proclaimed the CN Tower was infact the World's Tallest Building and Tallest Free-Standing Structure on Land.
The claim that 'The CN Tower is excluded from these categories because it is not a "habitable building", which is defined as a frame structure made with floors and walls throughout.' is false because it does indeed have floors and walls throughout.  The only difference between the CN Tower and other buildings in the list is that those floors and sections are offlimits to the public because they do not involve the tourist or restaurant functions of the building.
Sure it may be true that only 4 floors are technically accessible by the public: Glass Floor Level (342m), Lookout Level (346m), 360 Restaurant Level (351m), and finally Skypod Level (447m); however, in reality in the main upper levels (the big bubble) there are in fact 7 floors that house various communications equipment such as the Raydome and communications masts.
**** When people say "floors throughout" they don't mean "100% of the occupiable space has floors throughout" (which may be true about the CNT). What they mean is "100% of the _entire structure_ has floors throughout", i.e. Sears Tower. The CN Tower obviously doesn't fit this definition. 90% of the interior of the structure does not have floors at all. Its just concrete, and maybe there's an emergency stairwell, but that's probably it. No living space. The world's tallest "building" has to have living/office space throughout. 
To quote Ron Klemenic, chairman, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the body that decides the world's tallest building: 
When asked why the CN Tower _is not_ considered the tallest building in the world: "The CN Tower is the tallest freestanding structure in the world, but we don't consider it to be a building: it's a tower....because the lion's share of the tower is not occupiable space, it's simply a tower or a shaft."
The tallest "building", at least for a couple more years until Burj Dubai is topped out, is Taipei 101. Or if you consider 100% of the building, including antennae that do not contribute to the architecture (to paraphrase Mr. Klemenic), then it's the Sears Tower. He says "For the Sears Tower its pretty clear...the antennae don't count, because if you remove them, the fundamental appearance of the building doesn't change...whereas if you removed the spire from the Chrysler Building in New York, it doesn't look like the Chrysler Building any longer." He goes on to say how that definition is the only reason the Petronas Towers shortly held the title, because their spires are considered integral to the architecture. Without them, the Petronas Towers would have been slightly too short to gain the title, as the Sears roof is higher than the base of the Petronas spires.
Source ~ Guiness Book of World Records, 2005. Ypsidan 16:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CN Tower 

message: Why are the WTC towers in this table, either the table should be renamed, or the towers removed. ed g2s • talk 19:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The Warsaw radio mast is confusing. It should be removed. -- Aethralis 08:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current-standing

message: Makes no sense:
1 CN Tower, Toronto (ON), Canada 1976 553 1,815 – 
2 Ostankino Tower, Moscow, Russia 1967 577 1,894 –
-----
To quote the Ostankino Wiki page:
"As of 2005, (Ostankino) remains the highest freestanding structure in Eurasia.
The tower's construction began in 1963 and was completed in 1967. It held the record for the tallest free-standing structure in the world for one decade, until the CN Tower was built in Toronto, Canada (1976). In 2003, media reports claimed a new antenna had been installed, increasing the tower's height to 577 metres (1893 feet). However, the new antenna is the same height as the old. Plans for a newer, higher antenna have been considered, but funding has not yet been secured."
Ostankino stands 540 m, 1,772 feet. Ypsidan 16:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wha??

message: Apparently the Spire of Dublin is the world's tallest sculpture (i.e. it serves no purpose, no antennae, no nothing). In other words, the world's tallest useless object.
Is this true?
Should it be mentioned in this article?
zoney ♣ talk 20:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mention it if you wish as a relevant side note. It certainly beats out the statue of liberty. --Ctrl buildtalk  22:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tallest sculpture 

message: I have read that the Mars Tension-leg Platform (Gulf of Mexico)   is 3250 ft. (990.6 m) tall... why is this not mentioned here? --Mm35173 21:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can edit the article is you wish, but please mention that given the construction of oil platforms, the use of boyant materials (many platforms can be moved from place to place due to this boyant/ship like property) that at many times you can only count the height above the water level as comparable to free standing stuctures. That said, the height above the ocean bottom is of note and merrit, and the tallest (deepest) of these structures should be noted in an encyclopedic article about tall structures. Just please insert only the "world's tallest" of these. I personally want to know what the world's tallest water tower is. --Ctrl buildtalk  20:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I am wondering whether tension-leg platforms should qualify as structures. The platform sections certainly are structures, but the bulk of their height comes from the teethers that hold them to the sea floor.  It seems disingenuous to call them structures as these tethers seem to anchor it in place more than give it structure.  - Ektar 16:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TLP's definitely don’t qualify. They are floating structures. And if you would want to include floating structures, there are deeper moored spar's and semi-submersibles. BoH 03:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Petronius is a compliant tower, which is not floating. The tower fully supports the deck. BoH 19:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mars Platform? 

message: This article throws around the term "habitual" a lot.  SHouldn't it be "habitable?"  Habitual only refers to "habit" as far as I can tell -- not "habitat."  --69.44.116.57 14:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. Seegoon 22:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Habitual or Habitable 

message: This list is missing the Troll A condeep platform, the largest structure ever moved. With a total height of 472 m weighing 1.2 million tons it was moved 200km over 7 days to its current location in 1995.
:Well, this is Wikipedia so you know what to do: be bold!
:Atlant 13:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troll A platform 

message: Shouldn't there be a section on that? In which case the Burj al-Arab in Dubai, U.A.E. would be tallest.
I'm going to remove the Burj Dubai entry for tallest hotel. The hotel will only occupy the lower 37 floors of the building which is less than 160 m. The tallest finished hotel in the world is Burj al-Arab at 321m. --Jibran1 14:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tallest Hotel? 

message: Note that the so called "comparison of top skyscrapers" image is obviously POV towards category 4 of buildings. There are lines protruding from the top of each profile indicating the building's height under category 4, but none of the other categories. The graying out of the buildings' substance makes it impossible to distinsh between antennas and spires, (which are tough to distinguish in any picture to begin with). The buildings are arranged in a tallest-to-shortest order congruent with their category 4 rankings but incongruent with any other ranking. This picture is posted in about a bajillion different pages on wikipedia, it's probably one of the most used pictures related to tall skyscrapers on this website. Nevertheless, I dont really care if its removed or not. It will be obselete in a couple of years anyways. Besides, a much bigger issue is the fact that there's a difference between a building and a structure, just as there is a difference between apples and fruits, or humans and animals. 18.251.6.240 18:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV image 

message: Is the height of the oil rig platforms measured from the ocean floor to the tip?  If so, i dont think they should be included on this list.  Thoughts?--Gephart 00:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Platforms

message: "whether structures currently under construction can be included in the list"
I don't see how this can create controversy. It's clear that a building that doesn't exist - even if designed or partly built - is not a tallest structure. --A Sunshade Lust 00:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. These entries should either be removed from the list, or two lists should be made: one including only buildings that have been built, and the other including ones that are either under construction or proposed to build.--Gephart 05:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Construction 

message: The rankings go from 25 to 29 in the world's tallest skyscraper table. Any reason? --MZMcBride 20:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tallest skyscrapers section 

message: This article needs a complete clean-up.  Anyone want to volunteer?--Gephart 22:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up

message: Removed port tower complex link, why?- Mm11 12:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Port tower complex 

message: The Washington Monument and Eiffel Tower are not buildings.  I believe Mole Antonelliana was (by some measure or other) tallest building at some point in this interval. jnestorius(talk) 12:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why aren't the Washington Monument and the Eiffel Tower buildings? They're not habitable buildings, but they're both self-supporting. bob rulz 22:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However we define "building" we should be consistent, at least within a single table! Either remove Washington Monument and Eiffel Tower or else remove Petronas and Taipei 101 and add the CN Tower. jnestorius(talk) 08:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that the term "building" is used strictly for habitable structures, and the term "structure" or "free-standing structure" is used for uninhabitable structures. Whatever terms are used, I'd like to see two separate History lists split out using this distinction.Krumhorns 06:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tallest "buildings" in world history ?

message: The CN Tower page states as fact that it is the tallest building in the world.  Please help edit the page to reflect what official sources state.  Also please contribute to the discussion on Talk:CN_Tower#Consistency.  It was pointed out there that the World's tallest structures page does not cite any sources, so it would be useful if those could be provided as well. Uris 19:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CN Tower - Tallest Building in the World

message: Can anyone explain why the "Highest Point" on the Sears Tower is 300 feet lower than the top of its antenna?
::If you find term "highest point" used in that regard, it is misleading. "Highest architectural point" is different, however: it refers to the highest point in the building "as designed". Anything on top of that is considered a sort of furniture, being easily mutable and quasi-temporary. The "tip height" (maximum height including antennae) of the Sears Tower has changed at least 3 times since it was built, and such changes are common for other buildings. Montalto 03:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Highest Point" vs. "Top of Antenna" Discrepancy 

message: And what about the Eiffel Tower? 
... Is listed twice. Why??LHD1116 18:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Tallest free standing structure"

message: The Ryugyong Hotel is not under construction, nor is there any feasable way the building could ever be (or could ever have been) completed given the structural integrity of the components used.  Calling it an "unfinished building" implies otherwise.  I suggest a permanent change in the row to "Hollow concrete shell" which is a much more apt description of the structure. --NEMT 19:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the building really can't be completed, and it's not the highest anything of any sort (which seems to be the case), the best solution would appear to be to simply remove it. After all I can plan to build a 2000 story building in my back yard, but the pile of sand I put in the corner does not warrant an entry on the list either. But compare and contrast with Bay-Adelaide Centre before making a change. Maury 19:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncompleted building vs. Hollow concrete shell 

message: Anyone else think the external links section is getting a bit large and repetitive? I wanted to ask before I went ahead and trimmed some, as I'm not sure what might be best. A lot of these say pretty much the exact same thing at the article and each other, and the general 'rule' for external links is that they /add/ info, not repeat it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspam? 

message: The big "Tallest structure by category" table was recently made a "sortable" table.  This seems to be a new feature.  Whenever I try to use the sort buttons, it breaks the table.  One of the entries from "Category" column will always end up in the "Structure" column. I have tried it in Firefox 1.5 and Internet Explorer 6.0, and they both screw up the table.  I'm reverting back to a regular table for now.  It is a neat idea, but it should work first. The old version can be found here --Transfinite 03:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikitable sortable 

message: I wonder why the 328 meter high Sky Tower of Auckland, NZ (www.skytower.co.nz) is missed??
:This article only lists the single tallest structure in each category. As lovely as it may be, the Sky Tower does not top any of these categories. Mikeeg555 05:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sky Tower 

message: Anyone ELSE wanna keep reverting the vadalism the IP User is putting? I was never sure if using those warnings on talk pages was supposed to be reserved for admins or not, but I don't feel comfortable using them as a normal person. Sigh. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I give up.... 

message: The gold mines under South Africa are the world's deepest: they extend more than 3.5 kilometers under ground. In order to get to the bottom, workers obviously have to ride something and/or take corridors. It is said that a trip in a cage to the bottom of one of those takes an hour: obviously, someone could argue that the system of lifts and tunnels could constitute a "structure" - and such a structure could arguably be the world's tallest (remember, height is from top to bottom).  68.36.214.143 01:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A manmade structure taller than the Burj Dubai, even when the latter is complete 

message: How is this the tallest tower? Its not even among the tallest towers. I am changing it to CN tower. I'd prefer the tower row be removed completely. Aniket ray 11:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Needle 

message: Borj-e-Milad with the height of 435 meters is not listed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.5.218.156 (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borj-e-Milad (Tehran) is missed 

message: I think the Potala Palace in Tibet deserves mention.  It arguably eclipsed the Pyramids when it was built in the 7th century,  however I don't know its exact height
then.  Its present height is 117 meters, and it has had that height from the 17th century.  However, at that time it would have been
smaller than the Cathedrals.    Also, it is built on a hill, so I'm not sure how exactly its height is measured.  This website has some info:
http://www.regenttour.com/chinaplanner/lxa/lxa-sights-potala.htm .
Thanks,  75.18.160.94 18:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potala Palace

message: Hello? What the heck?!! The Petronas Towers are 452 m. tall, and the Sears are 443 m. tall. But the graph on the main page shows the sears tower is 527 m. tall, and the petronal toweres 452 m. tall. Someone please do some research and take that graph out and replace it with correct information!!!
::The graph is correct, as it shows the height to the top of the Sears Tower's antennae (which rises to 527 m). The Sears has a taller roof, pinnacle, and habitable floor than the Petronas Towers, so on a graph it would appear taller. It is only because of the Petronas Towers' spires that they are officially taller. On a graph that shows pinnacle height, as this one does, the Sears is actually taller (not officially, only be pinnacle height) than the Petronas Towers. Raime 00:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petronas Towers are taller than the Sears Tower

message: 3 articles were merged into this one to avoid repition. I did not incorporate it as I will leave it open to discussion below on how to proceed.--Jorfer 02:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Why no mention of this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kijong-dong
At 160m it is taller than the flagpole listed. An error or a case of "Opression by ommission" because it is the DPRK? (North Korea for the uneducated)--80.47.165.24 11:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tallest flag tower dispute 

message: Although the former tallest, the opening image is rather ugly to me.  I'd like to suggest a change, perhaps to the CN Tower.  The next picture is hideous, with the glare.  Reywas92Talk 21:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main pic 

message: Why is it that 'List of tallest buildings and structures in the world' ends, and the merged 'List of tallest structures in the world' simply begins af if there are two articles in one article?  Towers over 300m is much too long and takes up half of what is here.  The under construction towers part is also much too long.  After that, the tallest structures by use is just plain redundant.  Then, the 'by country' part contradicts the article title.
My suggestion:  undo the merge and delete everthing under the first External links so that there are 9 sections in the TOC.  I will be happy to do the work myself.  Reywas92Talk 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not completely sure what you are trying to get across, but either way, how it is now is horrible.  Reywas92Talk 23:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad merge 

message: If memory serves, the Pharos Lighthouse was taller than the Great Pyramid while the Lighthouse was still standing? Am I wrong? 141.157.73.48 19:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pharos Lighthouse 

message: Why is this listed... unless it is (while still being under construction) taller than the radio masts? gren グレン 03:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Burj Dubai]] 

message: We definitely need to fix this mess somehow.--Jorfer 02:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By country is much too long already.  Leave that how it is.  The tables in Tallest buildings are very nice, they should be copie\d into here.  Structures is mainly radio/transmitter masts; it should stay how it is.  Basically, I think it is mostly fine, but if no one else does, then I could sway to a merge/split. Reywas92Talk 21:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 2

message: The tallest residential building to architectural top is in fact Q1, not Eureka, although the latter is taller in two out of the four categories Leon 00:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eureka vs. Q1 

message: I'm voting that this section be turned into a table, much like the tables above this.  I feel the content expressed should really be on that specific wiki page.  I'm no wikipedia expert so I not sure if there is protocol to follow.  Mbubel 18:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed record-breaking structures 

message: Ostankino has been listed as the tallest TV Tower. Do not add another TV Tower to the list if its not taller than Ostankino. If there is a good reason why Ostankino should not be the tallest TV Tower please mention it here in the talk page. Aniket ray 06:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the CN Tower also a TV tower?  The CN Tower and Ostankino tower seem functionally the same: both are massive, free-standing TV towers with elevators reaching high-altitude sections with observation decks and restaurants.  For that matter, aren't the even taller guyed masts (e.g. KVLY) also "TV towers"?  Fredwerner 04:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The tallest TV mast is the KVLY-TV mast. The tallest free-standing TV tower is the CN Tower. Are you trying to create a category that does not include the CN Tower just so Ostankino can the on the list? JohnnyB 14:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TV Tower

message: As I remember, 40 Wall Street was briefly taller than the Chrysler Building, whose developer brought up the sizable spire at the last minute to win the sort of contest that existed between the two. If this is the case, why doesn't 40 Wall appear on the historical list? --Tothebarricades 07:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the Eiffel Tower is taller. So 40 Wall Street was the tallest building, but not structure. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chrysler Building vs. 40 Wall Street 

message: In 1863 the tallest structure in the world was the " Mole Antonelliana " in Turin
Italy, standing at 548 feet. the "Mole" is still standing and operational, it houses the Cinema Museum.
and? who cares about "the mole"? perhaps you didn't read the original post being in meters not feetMotorbyclist 05:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mole Antonelliana 

message: Someone is still vandalizing Towers and Other Structures for comparison section in Currently-standing tallest skyscrapers listed by height to the architectural top, please explain me why is someting better than height based list there. --Jklamo 15:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towers section 

message: Is there a special reason, why Eiffel Tower in Paris is not listed between the world's tallest buildings ? Prunk 06:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's not a building. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eiffel Tower 

message: Is this a legitimate category of tower that is recognized by any organization that measures buildings? It seems like the kind of category that someone just added to this article so that the Petronas Twin Towers would permanently be on the list even once their height was surpassed. Similarly with the five-sided buildings. Just wondering if there's any legitimate reason for including those categories, since they really are just buildings as those in the general building category TheHYPO 23:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if no self-appointed organization has a category for tallest twin towers, it still remains as an objective, measurable fact that the Petronas Towers are the tallest twin towers in the world. This Wikipedia article reflects that fact. It is a fact that some Wikipedia readers may be interested in. --JHP 02:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an objective fact that the tallest building on my street is my house... but that doesn't make it a fact of any notabilityand definately does not belong on this list. Wikipedia (particularly lists) ought not contain data that is of no notability. If no book, organization or official listing group recognizes these categories, they ought be deleted. There is a category for buildings. Subdividing buildings seems arbitrary. 5-faced building? Who cares? Sears tower has like... 20 faces - can it forever exist on the list under that category? I can create any category I want to fit in virtually any building I want. I would like to see invented categories like this deleted. If I went up to any person on the street, I think they would all agree that a flagpole is an independant type of structure. An electricity pylon is a unique type of structure. A Church is a unique type of structure. But 5-sided building is just a subclass of building - which is not even valuable because it's not like a majority of other buildings in contention are 4-sided. Is the Taipei 101 the tallest round building (or one-sided)? TheHYPO 05:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with you about the 5-sided one (it was added pretty recently anyway), but twin towers ARE most certainly a notable and unique type of structure, all things told. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twin Towers? 

message: Generally this article adds to the confusion, but especially this section listed above. The Council uses ONLY one category to determine the official world's tallest. The others are additonal information collected on buildings but do not confer any "supreme title" on any of the structures. Also, the official criteria has been the same from the 1930's to now since during the 40 Wall Street and Chrysler race for tallest. Either correct it or I will change in two days.Gary Joseph 23:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because a self-appointed organization has one particular measure does not mean that other thinking people cannot use other objective measures. This article reflects that. Counting the spire is stupid. Someone could build a one-story building with a 2000 foot spire and claim to have the tallest building in the world. --JHP 02:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, your example is telling since in my town, there are two buildings which have spire that account for more than 25% of their official heights. Anyway, it did not seem to be a problem when that same organization said Sears was tallest for thirty-some years. I bet if they changed the categories and made Sears tallest, no one would would question their legitimacy. Besides all other organizations, including BOMA, recognizes them. They are not self-appointed. Read a book... or two.Gary Joseph 03:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tallest Building Section

message: Under the table "Tallest building by function", Recreational is listed as: Stratosphere Tower 
First of all, is the Stratosphere not the same as the CN Tower, in that, it's not a building at all, so shouldn't fit on this list? And if it does fit on this list, should the CN Tower, as an observation tower and restaurant, not be considered a recreational building as well? Or does its use as an antenna negate that aspect of it's use (so no buildings with antennae can be on that list)? I would also like to suggest that Burj Dubai being listed as the Tallest office building is premature, in that at this time, it has no functional offices. TheHYPO 03:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like section Tallest structure by category, these section are from the most part unreferenced mess, paritally including user-created categories created to include his favourite structure. I tried to clean-up them multiple times, but in a few days sections are populated and expanded again. --Jklamo 11:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest cleaning it up, and putting an HTML warning (in the form  - it will only show up to editors and not in the article. If people continue to return crap to the article, you can consider asking for protection or semi-protection for the article. TheHYPO 05:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been trying to clean it up (i.e., noting that Burj Dubai is not habitable and therefore does not have a specific function yet, adding mixed use and library sections). But TheHYPO, you're definitely right about the Stratoshere Tower. It needs to be removed; there is no question about it. The Stratosphere, like the CN Tower, is not a building, and therefore should not be in the "Tallest Buildings by Function" Section. Raime 06:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tallest Building by Function? 

message: This image is nice, but it does not accurately portray the current status of Burj Dubai. I think we need to replace it with a recent image of the building, showing its current height and construction status. Also, since Taipei 101 is still the "official" tallest building, shouldn't it have an image included somewhere near the top of the article? Raime 15:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burj Dubai Main Image 

message: this is listed twice, with both listing something different.
InlovewithGod 15:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tallest flagpole free-standing is listed twice

message: The Qinghai-Tibet railroad spans more than one kilometer in height, I think, and is the highest railway in the world.... and there are deeper mines than 800 meters. And some might start finding ways to argue that such objects constitute "structures". 204.52.215.107 14:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a railway track! It does not fall under the category of "tall". --Jibran1 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to talk about going underground, then you're going to have to do better than that.  There are personal wells that are deeper than the tallest structure on earth.  Try over 12 kilometers. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Even at 800 meters, it won't be the tallest manmade object

message: A mostly-underwater oil platform is NOT '2001 feet high'. If we define height as the difference between a human-made structure's highest point and the natural ground, well then...do some recalculating.74.237.28.5 19:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This Article Lacks Integrity, by Definition

message: We should figure out this control tower problem. Currently, the listing is this: 
Category                   	Structure                         	Country	City                       	Height (m)	Height (ft)
Air traffic control tower  	Vancouver Harbour Control Tower   	       	Vancouver, British Columbia	146       	481
Free standing control tower	Suvarnabhumi Airport Control Tower	       	Bangkok, Thailand          	132.2     	433.7
However, both structures are "free standing," i.e. no guy wires, so that category doesn't make sense. The problem here is that Vancouver Harbour Control Tower is on top of a skyscraper. The whole structure isn't a control tower. So, while Vancouver Harbour Control Tower is the highest control tower in the world, you can't really say it's the tallest. JohnnyB 13:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Control tower 

message: Is anyone considering adding this? Is it Great Wall of China?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.243.173.62 (talk) 04:36, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
:I'm absolutely sure it's not going to be the Great Wall. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tallest Wall? 

message: Hi. This stuff was on the news! The Burj Dubai is taller than the CN Tower. I'm not sure of the exact height, so could someone go check? This should also be in the main page. Can someone please go update this? I thought wikipedia was fast! Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 12:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Burj Dubai#Current height and timeline of events. --Mathew5000 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Major news sources are reporting that the Burj Dubai is now taller than the CN Tower, but the CTBUH won't change its ranking until the B.D. is actually completed. (See the link that Mathew5000 posted). Thus, listing the CN Tower as tallest is at least somewhat accurate, and possibly should not be changed yet. Kanook 16:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure about the CTBUH stuff? I thought they only measured "buildings". But that ranking doesn't mean it is not taller. The image at the top of the article should definitely change. It doesn't have to be a habitable building to a be a free-standing structure, completed or not. It is taller, and that is what this list measures, so the image should change. Rai-me 19:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a side note, I think that this recent image would be good to use. Rai-me 19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no objections were made, I went ahead and changed the image. Rai-me 01:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burj Dubai is taller than CN tower 

message: Any information about Dubai Towers Istanbul? Cancelled? Thessaysno 20:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubai Towers Istanbul 

message: For the radio towers found at Wikipedia:Requested pictures/Architecture#Former_world's_tallest_towers are still pictures required!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.240.177 (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures required 

message: Hey what about Canary Wharf in the docklands, that stands at 235.1 meters, and is one of londons landmarks.
i hope someone will plz add this iconic british (u.k.) building to the list
JCW216.110.114.117 04:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the tallest in any category. It's #183 on List of tallest buildings in the world (listed as One Canada Square). --Alvestrand 05:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canary Wharf  

message: Please check the table at the section "Timeline of guyed structures on land". It may be inaccurate for the years between 1956 and 1963. This is of great importance as in those years the tallest guyed structure was already the tallest manmade structure!
As it is not incommon that the height of radio masts and radio towers is modified dzuring their lifetime, the actual values of the FCC-table cannot be used. It is important to find out the height values at time of completion!
For the years between 1945 and 1954, it should be checked if NSS Annapolis was not the tallest guyed structure on the land.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.129.36.139 (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is generally not a good idea to add a general note saying This may be inaccurate ( See discussion) above a table. This would be very confusing to readers who are not familiar with Wikipedia, and I have therefore removed it. If something is inaccurate, add a specific reference to an individual entry and state that the height may be incorrect. Rai-me 19:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline of guyed structures on land