Talk:List of tallest church buildings

message: The tallest church is sagrada familia in barcelona (over 170 meters tall) please update the list.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.167.254.62 (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

message: Who made this list? Is it just a listing of random churches in order of height? It hardly includes any churches outside of Europe. There are at least two churches in New York City alone that ought to be on the list. -- Xerxes 21:00, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
*This is because there are in fact very few churches outside Europe which exceed 90m in height, which is at present the (entirely arbitrary) cutoff point for this list. It's not at all random and is relatively complete, although there are bound to be omissions. Only one church in NYC is this tall, as far as I can discover, and I have now included it and several other non-European churches on the list. Naturally, if you know of others then feel free to add them. -- Necrothesp 23:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Some of these churches have domes and spires, not towers, so I've renamed the list. -- Necrothesp 09:56, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Regarding the entry: 101,0 m 	331 ft 	Anglican Cathedral 	1978 	Liverpool 	England 	largest Protestant church in Europe and possibly the largest in the world. Please note that the Ulm Münster is a protestant church since 1531. --Pjacobi 11:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is protestant, see their German webpage which says "The protestant Muenster congregation in Ulm/Donau welcomes you on the Internet". The church is owned and used by Protestants, so is Protestant. Kusma (討論) 16:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protestant 

message: I notice someone has just changed Ypres Cathedral to St. Maartenskerk. Now, when I was in Ypres a couple of years ago all the guidebooks certainly referred to it as a cathedral and it is referred to as a cathedral on many websites. Which is correct? -- Necrothesp 19:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. -- Necrothesp 18:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ypres

message: The bottom cutoff point here is currently 90m. That's just arbitrary, but it's best to work down gradually and not suddenly add much shorter churches. I've therefore removed these:
|----- align="left" valign="top" bgcolor="#F8F8FF"
| 74.6 m || approx. 250ft || St Mary's Cathedral || 2000 || Sydney || Australia
|Burnt down in 1865. Current building began 1868.
|----- align="left" valign="top" bgcolor="#F8F8FF"
| 40.0 m || 128 ft || St. Nectan's || C13th || Hartland, Devon || UK
| Tallest parish church tower in the county of Devon.
-- Necrothesp 16:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed churches

message: which heights are correct, in metres or feet? They are not always matching:
*86.2 m are 282.8 ft -> 283 ft
*85.9 m are 281.8 ft -> 282 ft
the fact that there are mostly jumps of 0.3m makes me think the feet are correct
shouldn't we base this list on metres and convert them to feet?
*1 ft is 0.3048 m
*1 m is 3.2808399 ft
--androl 13:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably it depends on where each individual number comes from. --Ikar.us 20:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Some sources gave heights in metres, others in feet, and they don't always match that well. -- Necrothesp 00:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  metres/feet 

message: I am not sure this should be included. Yes it is a church-building but not a church in the strict sense of the word. Therefore I think we should not include this building. It is interesting enough to add the reference as a footnote. I leave it up for now, but if nobody complains I will take it out in a week or so and add a line referring to it in the introduction). Arnoutf 16:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've deleted this once already. It is not the church that has height, so it does not belong here. -- Necrothesp 18:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicago Temple Building 

message: Recently the issue concerning references to height (especially historic and therefore non controlable), height has been raised. I tend to agree with this issue. I would suggest the following idea:
* A reference is needed if the tower is no longer at its tallest height. 
* A reference is not needed if the tower still stands to its tallest height, because the claim can be checked if so required by measuring the tower
* A reference is not needed if the article about the church in question lists the historical tallest height in an acceptably referenced way (note that this is also not the case for Beauvais; and there is not even an article about Old St Pauls'). Arnoutf 14:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully endorse this idea. --Opie 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References to height 

message: Please restore the list!
: Done!. 
: You can revert to older versions by registering as a user. Then you can access the history list and restore previous versions.
: Please sign remarks on talk pages using four tildes: ~~~~ also if you are editing with an anonymous IP adress name. Thanks Arnoutf 21:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List restoration

message: I removed this church from the list (again), because it is obviously a mistaken conversion error from feet to metres. The noticable height is not the tower, which is about the same hight as the main structure itself, but the vaulting in the interior (157 ft). If the tower is about 157 metres high, than you should definately notice it on the many pictures taken from the cathedral! ...Dryke 19:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I correct myself, I found a reference to the height of the tower of 151 metres at [] that collapsed in the 18th century. ...Dryke 20:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I noticed i forgot to sign it twice...Dryke 21:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cathédrale Saint-Pierre de Beauvais

message: Excuse me, does this list includes belltowers (when separate to church)? Because the tallest in Itlay is Cremona's but it's not in the list. Cheers --Sailko 12:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know it does; of course only if it is a church belltower, so please add it at the appropriate positions. Arnoutf 12:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure we should add separate campanile. After all, they don't actually contribute to the height of the church building, which is what this page is all about. -- Necrothesp 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belltowers 

message: Different facts about tower height on the list and on the actual homepage of the church linked to. Which one is correct?
: Note that the spire height 132 and the heighest accesible rampart 123 seem to be confused between the articles. Arnoutf (talk) 09:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Petri, Hamburg 

message: An imposing tall church in the United States is St. Anthony's in Toledo, Ohio. It is 250 feet in height and was dedicated July 15, 1894 by the Bishop of Cleveland, Ignatius Horstmann. The diocese of Toledo was not established until 1910.
St. Anthony's Church is still standing despite being closed by the bishop of Toledo on January 1, 2006. Location is the corner of Nebraska and Junction Avenues. 
Ref. History of St. Anthony's Parish, Toledo, Ohio, Anno Domini 1957,
F.S. Legowski, 1957
Musicwriter (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not completely sure of your point, if you think it should be added, do so. Note however it would rank 3rd from the bottom in the current list, as the main sorting option is in metres (about 3 foot to a metre), so this church would be about 80 metres (please do the calculations). Arnoutf (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tallest Churches in the World 

message: Since my last comment I have browsed the net and read about a church in St. Louis, Missouri on Gravois Ave. with a height of 104.4 m (300 feet). The name of the Church is St. Francis DeSales. However, I am skeptical about quoting web pages as being authentic and accurate. I feel it's best to refer to a published book or refer to an official diocesan website before posting on wikipedia.com 
Musicwriter (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tall churches in The U. S. A. 

message: Oops, I made a little non-improvement of the column "Completion" to make it sort better. But then I thought of that "12th Century" means the years 1100-1199, not 1200-1299, so my modification made it worse than it was before. If "12th Century" is replaced by "1100s" it will work as I intended. But "1100s" must not be mistaken for the years 1100-1109, it should be interpreted as the years 1100-1199. Najro (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "12th Century" equals "11XXs"? No, with hidden sort key "{ {sms|1150}} [ [12th Century]]" sorts as "1150". Every single row have to be extended to for example "{ {sms|1890}} [ [1890]]" instead of only "[ [1890]]". sms means sort mode string. Najro (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting 

message: Should we maybe put a minimum height requirement for inclusion on this list? Otherwise people would just list all churches in the world. After checking the list for Belgium  and The Netherlands  there are already at least 40 churches higher than 80 meter (262 feet) in the low countries alone, we can't possibly start listing every church over 70m, can we? --Lamadude (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mininum height is already set up (74,5 m). Anyway still lower part of the table is incomplete and current 49 kb article size (WP:SIZE) is still growing. So rise limit to 80 m for example sounds like a good idea to me. --Jklamo (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How low can we go? 

message: lambertikirche münster ist missing: height 99m  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.28.84.20 (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  chuch missing 

message: What about highest churches, such as the church that occupies the top floor of Central Plaza in Wan Chai North, Hong Kong? 05:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What about them? As you said, that would be the highest church rather than the tallest church, as the entire function of the building is not the church. If included in this list, these churches would have to be in a separate section. However, I don't feel they belong here. --timsdad  (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest churches 

message: It seems that the Milan Cathedral is listed twice, at 109 (maybe the madonnina on top is included?) and at 106.5 m. Now which is the right one? --151.68.99.82 (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milan Cathedral 

message: Today I added one church from Poland to the list (Collegiate church of St. Mary Magdalene in Poznan, completed in 1262, already non-existant - destroyed during the fire in 1777 and finally remnants / walls were demolished in 1802). But several other churches from Poland are still missing - including one 101 metres high and the rest of them are below 100 metres (but more than 70 metres) high. Here is the list of the highest Polish churches (over 70 metres high) from Polish wikipedia:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_najwy%C5%BCszych_ko%C5%9Bcio%C5%82%C3%B3w_w_Polsce
And here an automatic translation of the same page:
http://translate.google.pl/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&u=http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_najwy%25C5%25BCszych_ko%25C5%259Bcio%25C5%2582%25C3%25B3w_w_Polsce&ei=TyKLSv-2OIXMmgPFhIh6&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dnajwy%25C5%25BCsze%2Bko%25C5%259Bcio%25C5%2582y%2Bw%2Bpolsce%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rlz%3D1W1ASUS_pl
I'll try to add some of them later, but if someone else has some spare time, they could add some of them - would be appreciated.
Cheers!
Peter558 (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Churches from Poland 

message: Hi, I know that at least Sacred Heart Cathedral in Bendigo, Victoria has a spire height of roughly 90 metres, so should be included in this list. Also might be worth checking out St Mary of the Angels Basilica in Geelong, Victoria, not so sure about it's height, it is positioned on elevated terrain and is very imposing because of that, but it sure looks tall! 114.75.9.107 (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provincial Victorian churches 

message: It is a myth that the Groningen Martini Tower was once 127 m high, images of the original spire clearly show that the hight cannot have exceeded the current hight much. The "real" original hight is estimated at about 102 m. Also, the tower wasn't finished in 1482. Only in 1548 the weather vane was placed at the top. See Frans Westra, Martinitoren (Groningen, 2009), p. 29  Peppyn (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martini Tower 

message: So confusing it requires a complex explanation in the lede section about historical heights and sorting that doesn't exist.  Couple that with the same building appearing multiple times without explanation (eg: Grote of Sint-Jacobskerk (The Hague) and Grote Kerk, The Hague lead to the same article), some missing (Saint Boniface's in Leeuwarden would qualify for this list), and heights at variance with other articles (though this is sometimes only 0.1 m so could be due to rounding).  Can I suggest a little cleanup is needed.  Astronaut (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, it seems "Grote of Sint-Jacobskerk (The Hague)" and "Grote Kerk, The Hague" are indeed different buildings.  Looking at nl:Grote of Sint-Jacobskerk (Den Haag) and nl:Sint-Jacobus de Meerderekerk (Den Haag) they are different.  It is the use here of the redirect on en.wikipedia which is incorrect, and should perhaps use Sint-Jacobuskerk (Den Haag) instead.  That doesn't exist as an article but is mentioned in the :Template:Tallest buildings in the Netherlands.  ... I have just gone and made that edit.  Astronaut (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A confusing list 

message: I actually came here first to try to replace the chart.  It was made in 2006 with what looks like a very old version of Excel.  Unfortunately, I found the list confusing due to multiple entries as I mention above.  What is the view about replacing the chart with something more modern, with a higher pixel resolution or in svg format?  Should it include historical heights in some way?  How many should be in the chart (certainly the current full list is way too many - maybe 25 will do)?  
I have some suggetions:  For each building, use a simple black shape (rectangular or triangular) to show current height, and a grey shaded shape to show a historical height in the same column.  Add a year in a small font to show the date when something changed.  Astronaut (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram 

message: For buildings which have exactly the same height, what is the WP:MOS convention for ordering within the table? Alphabetical by city? Alphabetical by country? Or somethimg else? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no even guidline about it, so there are mulitiple options. As far as i can see none of these options is applied in the article unanimously. I prefer sorting by completion date (older first). --Jklamo (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. I would not object to that proposal. It might be the best solution since we include historic buildings that no longer exist. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buildings with exact same height 

message: this is the first time the german article is much better than the english one. no pictures etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.2.254 (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The German article does indeed have photos.  Opinion is probably divided on whether the images add to the article or not.  Personally, I don't think they are necessary - after all, you can easily click on the relevant articles to see what a particular church looks like (assuming of course the destination aticle has an image).  Astronaut (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  german article 

message: Klara church in Stockholm measures 116 meters, not 105 as this article says. Can someone fix this? I'm afraid to fuck it all up if I try. --80.244.79.111 (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks for pointing that out. A. Parrot (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Klara kyrka in Stockholm

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of tallest bridges in the world which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 13:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: This might seem a very idiotic post, specially taking into consideration that I've never been to this place in particular, but in the illustrations found in its own article it seems that the church in question is clearly smaller than stated by the posted height and definitely smaller than at least the churches that follow it on this list. Could it be that a mistake in the main article could have propagated into all these lists?
It is entirely possible that I'm being misled by the pictures shown though.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.154.69.241 (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basilika Notre-Dame de la Paix 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of tallest church buildings. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305001008/http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/wi/wi0000/wi0017/data/wi0017data.pdf to http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/wi/wi0000/wi0017/data/wi0017data.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305090355/http://www.thebasilica.org/timeline.php to http://www.thebasilica.org/timeline.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The tower of the Martinskirche in Landshut is quoted as the tallest brick church tower in the world. The spire seems howhever to be of stonework. The brick part of the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekerk tower in Bruges might be actually taller as its spire is in brick. Grundeinzatstruppen (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest brick church tower 

message: The statement that Lincoln surpassed the Great Pyramid as the tallest building in the world is false. 
Angkor Wat has a height of 213 m (699 feet) and was built in the 1100s.
50.247.112.17 (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Angkor Wat? 

message: I suggest in the first list (taller than 99 meters) to create a column for the position of each church (with numbers - 1, 2, 3, etc.). My arguments for this are:
1. This list seems complete, and even if it is not complete, there are certainly very few missing churches. Even if there are missing churches, they can be added at any time and this will not affect the list.
2. The total number of churches in this list is not too large and the numbering will not create any difficulties.
3. With numbers it will be clearer and more informative.
4. With a column with numbers it will be possible to sort the churches also from the lowest to the highest in this list.
I also propose to remove the column "H" from the first table (taller than 99 meters). My arguments for this proposal are:
1. This column in the first table is completely empty. There is not even a single filled field in it.
2. At the end of the article there is a separate list, which includes all the churches that would find a place in the "H" column of the first list.
Therefore, I suggest that in the first list, the "H" column be replaced by a "Rank" column or a "Number" column, which should include numbers for the position of each church.
I also suggest that the column "Name of the church" be before the column "Height", as in the list of the largest church buildings the column with the names of the churches is before the columns with the area and volume of the churches. So first the names, then the values. It is more logical and clear to have the names before the values.Puldin (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The numbering makes the update very difficult and tedious. Also, there is no single methodology, therefore the order is in fact arbitrary. I suggest to simply delete the H column with no replacement.
Why taller than 99 meters and not taller 100 meters? Forza NYCFC !! (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

text: I agree with you. I would also suggest to remove those who are not taller than 100 meters, because the list is already too long thomasmazzotta 15:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for the first list (taller than 99 meters)