Talk:List of tallest statues

message: 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 ? 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Abstract art

message: Stalin Monument (Prague) should be included as well among destroyed statues. Ceplm (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Stalin's former statue in Prague (15.5 m high) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hong Kong 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Birth of the New World?PR 

message: 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)
replies: text: I was wondering the same thing. It seems fine to me. Hadron137 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:   faulty table formatting   

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 , 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)
thread_title:  tallest sculptures 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Statue criteria 

message: ... 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)
thread_title:  Puerto Rico 

message: The proper place for a civil discussion about these issues is the talk page. You could have come here on my edit and pinged me. My mistake re edit warring but the content of your edit summary lead me to believe you had reverted my edit. Swearing in edit summaries is contrary to WP:CIVIL. I am not claiming ownership of this article as other editors have agreed with not including statues such as Peter the Great and Birth of the New World. You need to gain consensus if you want the criteria for this list article to be changed. I would be happy to work with you to create a new list article which is a list of tallest monuments. This would help with this article as other editors have tried to include Peter the Great and Birth of the New World here. Let me know if you are interested in that project. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been avoiding the talk page because I already tried here, but nobody has seemed to get the point. Thanks for hearing me out - I could help clean up or add to a list of tallest monuments article, but my expertise really is elsewhere. ɱ (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your response. I understand you have tried to gain consensus here previously. But engaging with editors on a talk page is no guarantee that your point of view will become the consensus. Just a point that may not have been made previously which may help to convince you why Peter the Great and Birth of the New World shouldn't be included here is this: Go to Philadelphia City Hall and if you see the photo and read the relevant part of the article you will see that there is a statue of William Penn on top of this very tall building. The statue isn't that tall (11 metres) but the building is - 167 metres (including the statue). Does this statue then count as one of the tallest statues in the world? This is why the criteria for this list article is the height of the statue itself not the height of any structure it is part of (or on top of). The statues listed in this article do mention plinths and buildings they may stand on but these are listed separately so that the statue height can be seen and compared correctly with other statues. A list of tallest monuments would get round this by listing the total height of the monument no matter how tall any statue is that is part of the monument. If I have time I will create this new article as soon as I can and it would be great if you can contribute to it if you agree with the distinction I have just made between statues and monuments. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I understand. Ping me as you start it and I'll see how I can help. I agree it can help keep this list intact with only featuring statue height. ɱ (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter the Great 'statue' 

message: Table needs an update to include the "Birth of the New World" statue, in Puerto Rico. It measures 360 ft (110m), and wikipedia has had the entry on the statue since at least 18 August 2019. Seeing as it's the tallest statue outside of the Asian continent (being the 3rd biggest statue in the world) I'm really perplexed as to why it is not on the list. JonStarkPR (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been discussed extensively above. 'Birth of the New World' does not fulfil the criteria for this list. It is a 'monument' and the statue part (i.e. the human form) is less than 30m and therefore does not fulfil the height criterion. If you disagree you can always make the argument here. Robynthehode (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see, I've inadvertently made an error. I included this statue as I understood statue to refer to any sculpture that included human or animals in it. So the argument here is that only the human or animal part is a statue, the rest decorative? Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table needs an update 

message: Time to add The Giant (statue)? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giant 

message: This is currently listed as 30.35 meters tall. The reference given (132) says it was planned to be 198 meters tall. A photo in the London Times today (11/23/21) has a caption saying it is 38 meters tall, but the photo shows it is clearly much taller than that, but not 198 meters tall! I'd estimate from the photo it's about half that height, but a lot taller than 30.35 meters for sure. I'm not sure where to go from here. Pjholloway (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what you can see from a photo. Any estimate by you is original research WP:OR. Find a reliable source WP:RS which states current height. Robynthehode (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zheng Chenggong statue Taiwan 

message: Where is the second largest Buddha statue located in India 157.41.57.113 (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  S.st 

message: Looking at some of the talk above, and having foolishly added this (and since removed it):
|5
|Birth of the New World
|
|Christopher Columbus
|Arecibo
|
|110m (360 ft)
|When completed in 2016, it became the tallest sculpture in North America.
|2016
|
This and the Peter the Great statue fall into a grey area. This page defines statue as the part of a sculpture, minus an obvious base, that is human or animal. Normally, and historically, bases are quite clear. However in the two cases above the figure is integrated into a larger metal artwork that doesn't have as clear distinctions. Both have a figure on large boats that could not be isolated from the boat without destroying the overall art work. My suggestion would be to add a new column to the page with these and other 'grey area' statues. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that's a solution, but monument includes abstract and industrial monuments like the Spire in Dublin or the Eiffel Tower. The examples I used above are singular artworks (about a single person) made up of different elements. Perhaps these sculptures evade traditional description? You are choosing to measure a singular part of an artwork which can't exist apart from the whole (unlike a base). Basically, the overall sculpture cannot be interpreted in parts. Maybe you'll say we should have a tallest artwork page? Maybe, but a subsection of disputed, or grey area, or 'tall artworks which include statuary' would work well and is directly related to this page's contents while making clear the difference. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This list article's members are clearly defined. Your two examples are not statues but sculpture/artworks/monuments that contain statues - and those statues do not fulfil the height criteria. I oppose including any grey area examples in this article. As I said another article 'list of tallest artworks/monuments/sculptures' would make all this clear. And as a point you would need reliable sources to state the Eiffel Tower is a monument. Unfortunately the article on Monuments includes such a diverse range of structures to be meaningless (last time I looked it even including the Burj Khalifa) Robynthehode (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As a dedicated sculpture to an individual, who's full likeness is also part of a greater artwork (it is the man Columbus on his boat afterall), I think you're missing the mark artistically. Art isn't as straightforward nowadays and doesn't always fit easy definitions. It is very closely related to the content of this article, and the few examples probably wouldn't constitute a separate article, nor would it be appropriate to include it in a problematic and overly broad article (as you mentioned). I see not a huge difference in what we are both saying, other than you want a new page, and I want a sub category. I don't quite understand why these few exceptions are so problematic to you. If your concern is a bloated article, we are already pretty much there and it could probably use some trimming. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As a note, the Eiffel Tower is very definitely a monument. It says so multiple times on its page and is listed as exemplary on the monuments page. Not sure where that curve ball came from. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No we don't agree. This list article and its definition have been stable for a long time. You will need to build a new consensus to make the changes you suggest. It doesn't matter what you or I think about statues/sculptures artistically. Wikipedia is based on verifiable independent reliable sources WP:RS not the opinions of its editors. As regards the Eiffel Tower it may say its a monument on the Wikipedia article page but that doesn't make it a 'monument' unless that is supported by reliable sources stating precisely that within that article. Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself WP:NOTSOURCE. So unless you get a new consensus WP:CONSENSUS the definition and content of this list article should remain the same. Robynthehode (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: OMG relax. Read those pages on the Eiffel Tower and tell me they aren't sourced well before you throw up WP shortcuts. And we do agree that it is a different category, only not how to handle that (you skirted around that point btw). Now, just take a step back. Breath. Putting forward artistic arguments about art is what a talk page is for. This may lead to consensus. We both know that's how it works. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The tone of your response reads as being patronising. But let's both take a step back. My point re the Eiffel Tower is that you have made a positive claim that it is a monument and that it is because it says so in the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia protocols are my side here. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia. And I was not claiming that the Eiffel Tower page is not well sourced just that you would need to show that there are reliable sources in that article that call it a momument. That might very well be the case. But as you are trying to use the Eiffel Tower example to support your claim it is up to you to present the evidence. And, of course, you can put forward arguments supported by reliable sources re art but so far you haven't done that merely making personal assertions about specific sculptures and how they should fit into this article. Again the definition for inclusion of entries for this article are clear. Another article on tallest sculptures (if this is preferred to monuments) would solve this rather than trying to shoehorn sculptures into the article that don't fulfil the definition. Robynthehode (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok agreed to step back. Eiffel Tower example was to position against, i.e. lumping a statue/sculpture in with an industrial monument like that is a bad move for both. The article is however well sourced and that is what I meant, I'm sorry that led to a disagreement. It's off topic at this point so I'd rather move on. However, upon inspection, I think you will see there is a strong case to include the Puerto Rican Christopher Columbus statue. It is considered a singular "statue" in reliable mainstream sources: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. and is known locally as the Columbus Statue (Estatua de Colón). All (including reliable art sources) refer to the whole art object and not just the figurative part. I'll leave it there. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sculptures v statues 

message: Statue of sita Mata statue is wrongly depicted and been vandalized, it is actually the statue of Rama whose hight is 251 meter 103.83.128.31 (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sita Mata statue 

message: These are 2 new Buddha (Gautama) statues that are being built in Thailand that should be added on the list.
1."Phra Putta Metta Statue" with the height of 80 meters including the base. It is located in Udon Thani province.
Sources:
1.https://www.boontoday.com/event/detail/1781
2.https://palanla.com/index.php?op=domesticLocation-detail&id=897
3.The announcement posted by official Facebook page.
Coordination: 16°11'09.0"N 100°34'38.6"E
2."Phra Putta Trailokkanat" with the height of 75 meters. It is located in Udon Thani province.
Sources: 
1.https://www.boontoday.com/event/detail/2935
2.The announcement posted by official Facebook page.
Coordination: 17°18'52.5"N 102°37'55.8"E
Can I go ahead and add these two statues? Helpfulin (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You will need better reliable sources to add these statues WP:RS. For example tourist websites and Facebook are not considered reliable sources. Also you will need a source that states the statue height excluding the base as this is how statues are listed in this article Robynthehode (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two new Buddha statues under construction in Thailand should be added. 

message: I have reverted your edit User:Aakash Singh India for the Statue of Belief in List of tallest statues because the height is contested. The height stated in sources seems to be the overall height not the statue height alone. If this is the case then its place in the list would be much lower (see the Statue of Belief article). Please discuss on the article talk page and do not revert again as you are engaged in an edit war WP:WAR Robynthehode (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Statue of Belief

message: The GWK statue  opened in 2018 on the island of Bali in Indonesia is 122 m  tall and should be in 3rd position on the list 2405:6E00:268D:88EC:E097:8717:C352:85F5 (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This statue is listed correctly in 17th place. The height used is the statue height not the overall height of the monument - criteria all described in the lede Robynthehode (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statue height 

message: 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) 15:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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) 17:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: To begin with, Ukraine has a statue called Motherland Monument or Batkivshchýna-Máty (that means mother motherland), which height is 102 m (335 ft). It IS the tallest statue in the Europe, and is definitely among top-10, if not top-5. 
Here is a link to the wiki page about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motherland_Monument
Also, I would like to request to delete data about russian statues. First of all, russia is a war-terrorist country and spreading information about them or containing it really feels as offensive as openly supporting them. Secondly, a lot of other countries are ignored, so why would it be that hard to ignore them too? 2A0D:3344:1DDA:A010:24AB:FFB6:D837:AA26 (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You must be joking. This is an encyclopaedia, not a political campaign. Next what, you will propose to blank Russia on world maps, huh? — kashmīrī TALK 10:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table needs to be updated and russia needs to be deleted 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Hi,
since the list is, in my opinion, way too long, I propose to keep only the statues who are at least 40 or 50 metres high. This way there would be 70+ or 47 entries, respectively. @Robynthehode Baronedimare (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 50m seems like a good cut-off. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

text: The issue is that doing so will technically remove the Statue of Liberty and Christ the Redeemer, which are kinda significant. Are we going by statue-only height, or total height with pedestals? CompyN (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just because they are famous it does not mean that they have to be included in the list of tallest statues. However, I personally would not be opposed if we decided to take into account total height with pedestals--thomasmazzotta 18:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

text: For the record, I strongly disagree with this change. A list of 150 massive, notable, internationally renowned sculptures simply isn't too long. What is the purpose of cutting the page in half? Especially for a list like this, the page size itself isn't very large. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Who implemented the proposed changes based on "height of statue without pedestal"? I thought we were going to include pedestal height so we don't exclude the Statue of Liberty and Christ the Redeemer? CompyN (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a longstanding consensus and content criteria for statues measured without pedestal height. A new consensus would be needed to change the criteria. For the record I object to any change and the recent change in list size Robynthehode (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For my part, I don't care whether the number is based on the statue or statue + pedastal. My contention is there was simply no good reason to cut the list in half. It wasn't too long. I see one person saying it's too long. The only opinion that looks like agreement is 's, but I don't know if they took the "it's too long" starting point for granted or agreed that it was too long. For a list that gets more than a thousand views every day, ideally there's a stronger consensus to just cut it in half. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't feel too strongly here. If I recall correctly, my comment was based on this version, which does seem a bit long to me. I'm open to a Top 50 list, a Top 100 list, a list of statues above a specific height, or really whatever others think is best. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  List too long 

message: Item 38, Statue of Guan Yu (Jingzhou) has already been destroyed.
Refs:     Magister Mathematicae (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guan Yu statue was destroyed 

message: Currently entry 20 in the existing list is for a Buddha statue is Vietnam  that has a note this is the tallest statue in SE Asia.  There are multiple entries included in the list for Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, and Myanmar above it in the list. What is the basis for this claim since it seems to not be consistent with the rest of the list. 71.163.39.148 (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tallest Statue SE Asia claim 

message: Just a note, we have to be careful especially about proposed statues as we here don't have crystal ball and we don't do any advocacy at Wikipedia as per WP:NOT. Anybody can suggest some or claim anything (especially some extraordinary things), but actual things needs to be done (serious work) and covered in many sources and to be relevant to be included in the list. 109.93.84.102 (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We could keep only those already under construction thomasmazzotta 16:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed claims