Talk:List of tallest towers

message: Shanghai Tower is missing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defalias (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  request 

message: The article now opens with (I quote):
:This is list of towers - structures with limited floor space as compared to more regular buildings, and which supporting their own weight (as opposed to masts which are held standing by guylines).
:Towers with guylines for their main structure or antenna are currently included.
: Term "tower" is often used in names of skyscrapers, especially in United States. These structures are not included here.
The term towers is badly defined. The phrase: Tower is a structure with limited floor space compared to more regular buildings - is useless as there is no hint what a regular building is (I get the idea, but the sentence is unclear). Furhtermore the definition implies a floor space, so this disqualifies solid objects (some of the memorials are), on the other hand, if solid objects are allowed trees fall within the definition of tower. So the definition definitely requires improvement. 
Furhtermore, there is no reason to exclude skyscrapers, they should be in.
I base myself on the tower article in Wikipedia for the following definition suggestion (open for discussion) 
:This is a list of towers order by height.
: A tower is a tall man-made structure, always taller than it is wide. In this list only towers which are self supporting are listed. Tall structures held aloft exclusively by guy-lines are considered masts. Some strucutres are partially guyed, and these may be listed on the tower list. 
I would further want to suggest to limit structures to be added to the list to follow one of the purposes listed in the towers page. Arnoutf 14:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And another one. Torre means tower, but still Torre Mayor in Mexico is a skyscraper. I could delete that myself since there's no line numbers, so wouldn't mess those. Let's see about that. 85.217.38.115 (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And as far as I can tell most skyscrapers conform to the definition cited earlier in the tower article.  If you want to exclude skyscrapers then I think the definition needs to include the term "habitable"... have a look at http://standards.emporis.com/?nav=realestate&lng=3&esn=15705 Marlarkey (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, Wisma 46 is clearly habitable. It does not mean it is in residential use, but rather than it surely could be. I think you're mixing "habitable" and "habited". 85.217.45.223 (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of towers 

message: The first three entries listed in the "Towers taller than 250 meters" section are either proposed, under construction, or otherwise do not yet exist. I think they should either be removed, or placed in their own section (or table) until their construction has been completed. 142.68.84.18 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I see this issue has been resolved, I'm also replacing the numeric "Rank" column (first table) that had been removed when those three futuristic towers first appeared on the list. 142.68.84.18 (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it was ok then, but now the list has 'under-construction' TOP2. Though the number 2 is topped-out and won't be any taller than it is now, the top-spot holder is only 2/3 constructed! 85.217.50.101 (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Futuristic top-3 

message: I think it should be added to the list, that seems an old one :S  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.33.1 (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Burj Khalifa is a skyscraper, not a tower, and fits in other lists. 131.111.184.95 (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on, I'm not at all clear what definition you're using then of "skyscraper" and "tower".  The Burj Khalifa is the tallest man-made structure OF ANY KIND and Burj is arabic means "tower" so it is called a tower.  What architectural definition is being used for this article that excludes the Burj Khalifa ? Marlarkey (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Burj Khalifa is a building with normal floors and everything. Therefore it does not qualify as tower. This is not a list of structures named as "Tower", only actual towers. 85.217.45.223 (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burj Khalifa 

message: These lists are obvious redundant since Burj Khalifa is on every single list. All of these lists need reconsideration. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE  16:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: World's tallest "fill in blank"

message: How about removing Tallest structure in Indonesia, 1996-present, Wisma 46 (262 m)? At least the article for that structure tells about a building.
And another one, too. Torre Mayor (225 m) in Mexico City. Its article tells also about a building.
Either correct the respective articles to point to towers or remove those from the list. 82.141.95.131 (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buildings 

message: Tokyo Sky Tree is missing from the diagram.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphachap (talk • contribs) 15:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tokyo Sky Tree missing from diagram 

message: I added Taipei 101 to list - is there a quick way to renumber ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.216.149 (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Taipei is not a tower and should not be included in this list.  It appears correctly in List of tallest buildings.  Astronaut (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering incorrect - Assistance required please 

message: I suggest to remove TV Tower Vinnytsia from the list, definitely being a guyed tower and thus to be excluded from the list. If you agree, please feel free to edit the article. BertSeghers (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Its entry states "partly guyed", but picture in its article clearly supports the above claim, being totally guyed. 85.217.36.71 (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vinnytsia 

message: The list says Thus continuously habitable buildings and skyscrapers and radio and TV masts do not qualify. But there are still masts listed like WSB TV Tower, WHDH-TV Tower. As a general rule all buildings that are fully or partially guyed does not fit to this definition. --Alabasterstein (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and actually removed WSB TV tower from the list.  Seems someone added it back in.  Maybe all the lists in this article should have the self-supporting/partially guyed/guyed masts removed.  There are already plenty of other suitable articles, eg: Radio masts and towers.  Astronaut (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just removed WSB tower again.  Despite the word "tower", it is clearly a mast constructed of a metal lattice-work.  Astronaut (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition towers 

message: Is there any scientific reference or proof that the Tower of Jericho was indeed the tallest tower at the time? Same goes for the other earlier towers mentioned. The tallest moai, e.g., was already 9.8m tall and thus taller than the Tower of Jericho.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riemerb (talk • contribs) 10:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I have my doubt about the structures listed before the Pharos lighthouse.  The Luxor obelisk is just that, an obelisk.  The towers of Jericho and Babel are ruins with no definitive, reliable source stating their height or the years in which they existed.  The claim of being the world's tallest at some point thousands of years in the past is dubious at best.  Without documentation with a world view, it hard to say anything definite about them.  Astronaut (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed Babel - that's definitely in the realm of myth. I think we should remove Jericho as well, there's no real evidence that other structures, for example in China, wouldn't have been higher. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and I removed Jericho and Luxor as well. Apart from that their height is just guess they did not meet the definition of tower from the lead of article. --Jklamo (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: All right. I removed the image of the Jericho tower---it was somehow funny that the only picture on this page is not mentioned in the text. BertSeghers (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tower of Jericho 

message: This varies from section to section in order and content - why?
We have
*Towers taller than 250 metres
**Rank
**Name
**Pinnacle height (meters)
***(Just a number)
**Pinnacle height (feet)
***(Just a number)
**Year
**Structure
**Country
**City
**Remarks
*Towers between 200 and 250 metres tall
**Tower
**Year
**Country
**Town
**Pinnacle height
***(A number followed by an "m")
**Remarks 
*Towers between 100 and 200 metres tall
**Tower
**Year
**Country
**Town
**Pinnacle height
***(A number followed by an "m" and perhaps "/" another number and "ft")
***(Kuwait towers does it differently)
**Remarks 
I guess the absense of rank in later tables is to ease editing updates.
Why is it sometimes "name" and sometimes "tower"?
Why is "pinnacle height" sometimes before "year" and sometimes before "remarks"?
Why is it sometimes "City" and sometimes "Town"?
Why is height sometimes two columns (metres and feet) and sometimes one column? Conversion is easy.
Why is height units sometimes in the column headxer and sometimes in the body?
-- SGBailey (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea, but every time I see it I am reminded that I thought way back in 2009 I might get around to fixing that one day.  It might be a lot easier if all those guyed masts were removed and a single list made.  Astronaut (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Table columns

message: Kiev (#10) is listed as 'Tallest freestanding lattice tower in the world".  Can we check this?  I'm not sure what "lattice tower" means in this context; both Tokyo and Canton look like "lattice towers" to me.  Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it does look like the claim as "Tallest freestanding lattice tower in the world" could be challenged.  However, neither the Tokyo Sky Tree nor the Canton Tower claim to be the "Tallest freestanding lattice tower in the world", while the Kiev TV Tower provides a reference that says it is.  I have flagged the claim in the article as dubious and started a discussion there. Astronaut (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Tokyo Skytree clearly is a lattice tower, since there reads: The exterior lattice is painted a colour officially called "Skytree White". There is a source, but it gave a 404 error, so I can't tell if the source claimed exterior lattice. 85.217.36.71 (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  lattice tower? 

message: I have come to the conclusion that if its too hard to reconcile the use of the word tower, or to find an adjective that wouldn't mean wrecking half the list, then the title should probably be left as it is. However, it is vital that the opening paragraph is rewritten so that it clearly explains that the technical/engineering definition of tower according to the CTBUH and others is different to the standard English definition. This needs to be in the first sentence. It is the earliest possible place to dispel confusion. It would say to the casual reader - yes we know we are using a more restricted definition of tower than you're used to, but its a standard engineering definition as per these citations. As it stands now, there are no citations at all regarding the engineering definition and it reads like the editors have pulled a definition out of nowhere to suit themselves. Once that definition is in place with proper referencing, it should be strictly adhered to, and therefore the partially guyed list should be removed. Also, this is a list of the tallest towers, not a list of all towers, and anything shorter than 200m lacks relevance and needs to be cut.  Mdw0 (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggested lede change seems quite reasonable. I have no opinion on the 200m height cull. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Changed my mind

message: This is a list of towers, which are defined as tall man-made structures which are taller than they are wide. [OED] According to the CBTUH, a structure can be classified as a building if it has more than 50% of its height occupied by usable floor space.[CTBUH] Such structures can be found in the "List of tallest buildings in the world". In contrast, the structures below contain less than 50% occupied floor space by height. Such structures are classified by the CTBUH as "Telecommunications/Observation Towers"[CTBUH] and elsewhere simply as "towers"[Guinness]. Additionally, [list further exclusions, e.g. guyed masts, link to list of tallest structures].
The Tokyo Sky Tree, completed in February 2012, reaches a height of 634.0 m, making it the tallest tower, and second tallest structure in the world.
[Table of contents]
===Criteria for inclusion===
*Taller than wide [OED]
*Self-supporting [?]
*Occupied by humans in normal operation [?]
*Less than 50% occupied floor space by height [CTBUH]
===Continue Article===
...
A fair compromise? It maintains the current list and title, makes it more clear what is excluded and who the authorities are on the alternate definitions, and can actually be interpreted as being consistent with the dictionary definition due to the disambiguation with buildings. StuartH (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I agree the buildings list should be linked somewhere in the lede, but I don't think we need to elaborate on the OED common definition of tower, per my reasoning in the section above regarding the common vs technical definition of 'star'. There's a general lack of agreement among dictionaries on what exactly constitutes a tower to begin with, with the Collins English Dictionary, for instance, defining it as 'a tall, usually square or circular structure, sometimes part of a larger building and usually built for a specific purpose' with no mention of its height:width ratio. I really think we'd be better off simply stating something to the effect of 'for the purposes of this list, a tower is defined as X. For Y, see List of tallest buildings in the world. For Z, see List of tallest structures in the world.'. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we could just grab the first sentence from the tower article, then. "... is a tall structure, usually taller than it is wide, often by a significant margin". The difference between tower and star, however, is that dictionaries generally recognise that stars are distinct from planets, comets, etc. It is important to state why the dictionary definition doesn't match the list, so pointing to the "building" list and listing our own criteria as bullet points explains it simply, doesn't take sides, and maintains the list as it is. StuartH (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I have seen good suggestions both here and in the discussion immediately above, though I wouldn't be keen on the idea of changing the article title.  We can also go further and reformulate the list based on this list from the CTBUH.  The same page will let us create lists of projects under construction, and so on.  Essentially, this will give us a reliably sourced article that sticks to its inclusion criteria and will reduce any reader confusion.  If necessary, we can merge all those guyed masts and others into another article such as List of tallest structures in the world, or create a new List of tallest masts in the world article.  Astronaut (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This intro is OK, but the article is about towers, so the opening section needs to talk about what a tower is, rather than what a building is. More like "According to the CBTUH [and others], a tower contain less than 50% occupied floor space by height... This definition excludes structures with more floorspace that are primarily used for working or housing, classified as buildings by the CBTUH"  220.101.168.33 (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately the CBTUH doesn't actually say that, and no-one can find a reference where they do. If they did, it would be a lot easier for us. You're right - that was something that I thought might seem a little odd, so perhaps there is some rearranging of the words that still works as intended. Since there's a lack of consensus about whether tower actually excludes buildings, I wanted something that avoids explicitly claiming that. We can give our own criteria for inclusion in our list, but people looking for buildings can see near the top where that list is without saying one way or another whether a building is a tower, while still explaining the situation somewhat. StuartH (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you can use one of the other definitions as a precursor - this defintion says this, that defintions says that so for the purposes of the article our definition is this. That way the logical conclusion can be followed. Mdw0 (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, a definition of 'tallest towers' which excludes buildings which every ordinary person would recognise and refer to as a tower (each in their own language - burj, turm, tour, torre, etc) is always going to be bunk. Find a more specific way to title this list. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: How's this?

message: ...
A fair compromise? It maintains the current list and title, makes it more clear what is excluded and who the authorities are on the alternate definitions, and can actually be interpreted as being consistent with the dictionary definition due to the disambiguation with buildings. StuartH (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I agree the buildings list should be linked somewhere in the lede, but I don't think we need to elaborate on the OED common definition of tower, per my reasoning in the section above regarding the common vs technical definition of 'star'. There's a general lack of agreement among dictionaries on what exactly constitutes a tower to begin with, with the Collins English Dictionary, for instance, defining it as 'a tall, usually square or circular structure, sometimes part of a larger building and usually built for a specific purpose' with no mention of its height:width ratio. I really think we'd be better off simply stating something to the effect of 'for the purposes of this list, a tower is defined as X. For Y, see List of tallest buildings in the world. For Z, see List of tallest structures in the world.'. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we could just grab the first sentence from the tower article, then. "... is a tall structure, usually taller than it is wide, often by a significant margin". The difference between tower and star, however, is that dictionaries generally recognise that stars are distinct from planets, comets, etc. It is important to state why the dictionary definition doesn't match the list, so pointing to the "building" list and listing our own criteria as bullet points explains it simply, doesn't take sides, and maintains the list as it is. StuartH (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I have seen good suggestions both here and in the discussion immediately above, though I wouldn't be keen on the idea of changing the article title.  We can also go further and reformulate the list based on this list from the CTBUH.  The same page will let us create lists of projects under construction, and so on.  Essentially, this will give us a reliably sourced article that sticks to its inclusion criteria and will reduce any reader confusion.  If necessary, we can merge all those guyed masts and others into another article such as List of tallest structures in the world, or create a new List of tallest masts in the world article.  Astronaut (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This intro is OK, but the article is about towers, so the opening section needs to talk about what a tower is, rather than what a building is. More like "According to the CBTUH [and others], a tower contain less than 50% occupied floor space by height... This definition excludes structures with more floorspace that are primarily used for working or housing, classified as buildings by the CBTUH"  220.101.168.33 (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately the CBTUH doesn't actually say that, and no-one can find a reference where they do. If they did, it would be a lot easier for us. You're right - that was something that I thought might seem a little odd, so perhaps there is some rearranging of the words that still works as intended. Since there's a lack of consensus about whether tower actually excludes buildings, I wanted something that avoids explicitly claiming that. We can give our own criteria for inclusion in our list, but people looking for buildings can see near the top where that list is without saying one way or another whether a building is a tower, while still explaining the situation somewhat. StuartH (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you can use one of the other definitions as a precursor - this defintion says this, that defintions says that so for the purposes of the article our definition is this. That way the logical conclusion can be followed. Mdw0 (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, a definition of 'tallest towers' which excludes buildings which every ordinary person would recognise and refer to as a tower (each in their own language - burj, turm, tour, torre, etc) is always going to be bunk. Find a more specific way to title this list. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Continue Article

message: The Henan Province Radio & Television Tower in Zhengzhou, China is missing in the list. It is 388 m high and located in 34° 43′ 29″ N, 113° 43′ 22″ E.
141.20.50.57 (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is indeed something that looks like a tall tower at that location, that might meet the article's inclusion critera.  Feel free to add it to this list and provide a reliable source for its height.  We do not appear to have an article about the tower itself.  Astronaut (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how to add it to this list, but I found a good webpage: http://www.fbt.it/ENG/PAE/News/Installati/Zhongyuan-/index.asp
89.247.40.34 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: CTBUH does list this one. 85.217.36.71 (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henan Province Radio & Television Tower is missing in the list 

message: Anyone find the real year?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.162.145 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted.  That error seems to have been there for quite a while.  Astronaut (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaifeng TV Tower not built in 905 AD 

message: This list is outdated, and does not include China's Shanghai Tower nor Dubai's Burj Khalifa.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spirit469 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the insistence of this article's maintainers that 'tower' and 'building' are disjoint sets leads to absurd conclusions. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: This Article Is Outdated

message: See discussion at Talk:Tower#Tower vs building vs skyscraper jnestorius(talk) 17:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tower vs building vs skyscraper 

message: The table headers are in the wrong places. Edit: I spent 5 minutes and figured it out.. This revision made it clear. X172 (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messed up Table (see image) 

message: I don´t think the Kingdom Tower should be on this list. Firstly it isn´t even completed, secondly it will probably contain offices, which makes it unsuitable for this article. 85.151.58.91 (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it from the list. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me  14:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingdom tower 

message: PDF output using Google Chrome's built-in distiller produces poor results with this page. (Use the Ctrl P command in Chrome to preview). Issue may be with the template used or (more likely) the the way content was entered (coded) into the template and saved by the contributor. For example, when printing this article with Google's PDF printer, the font size is scaled down too much. Note that the font size should not dynamically scale up or down to fit a page; font size of the main-body text content should be about 12 points on outputted PDF page(s); it is the images and table cells that should dynamically scale up or down to fit the info box and template in order to maintain the two-column Wikipedia layout. The offending element appears to be the table. Refer to this Wikipedia article for a proper printer-friendly layout using tables (with images, if photos are to added to this article in the future) -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_German_Navy_ships  Printchecker (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template produces poor PDF (print) output 

message: As I noticed, many of towers are guyed, not self-supporting. Please, cleane-up this list. 212.34.37.242 (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to remove guyed structures. --Jklamo (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guyed masts 

message: The tall tower is 301 m  --2003:4D:2C48:2683:3838:A79B:BA59:7F1F (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is guyed, so it does not belong to this list. --Jklamo (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Langenberg transmission tower]] 

message: This list article is a mess. The definition in the lead is accurate according to various sources but the entries include TV and Radio towers (mostly lattice ones) which do not allow regular access for the public - an element of the definition of a tower. I will attempt to clean up this article but if anyone wants to help checking the status of towers according to the criteria for inclusion in the article that would be great. Also the lower tables need to be redone to match the first table. Robynthehode (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  List is confusing and a mess 

message: Should the Washington Monument be listed as the highest tower in the world between 1884 and 1889?  It's on the tower list, and it was the tallest building according to List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_the_world#History  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.96.180 (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington Monument 

message: There is a centralized discussion about whether or not to remove "in the world" from this and roughly fifteen other articles.
Please comment here: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 52#Global superlatives
Thank you,
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centralized page move discussion 

message: I have removed a number of TV towers from this list as they do not fulfil the definition for inclusion in the lead of the article. TV towers should possible be listed in a new list article. 'Tallest TV and Radio masts'. Please do not revert my changes without discussing it here first. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV Towers 

message: I have begun my bold editing of this article to remove entries in the list that don't fit in with the definition used at the beginning of the list. I broadly agree with the definition used for this article. It separates towers from other structures such as 'buildings', 'masts' (which are guyed), 'radio and TV structures that are self supporting', 'bridge towers', 'pylons' etc. I have spent a lot of time checking each entry to see if it accords with the definition and checked heights and other info. If I haven't found information to remove I have given the entry the benefit of the doubt and left it in. I may have made mistakes so please do not revert my edits but offer new entries here first that are debatable so the list can be kept concise and meaningful. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that there are no sources associated with the definition, these are bold edits :) 50.207.95.178 (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: They might be bold edits but they are in accord with a defintion for towers in the article that has been established through consensus. There are sources that define towers see CTBUH. Robynthehode (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Boldly editing this article

message: Shanghai Tower is missing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defalias (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shanghai Tower 

message: I am not sure about WITI TV Tower, Fazilka TV Tower, Mumbai Television Tower, Sutro Tower and Star Tower. These are listed as self-supported on CTBUH and used for telecommunications.Jklamo (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the towers you have listed should be on this list as they don't fit the criteria. They are all lattice towers and nearly all lattice towers do not have the facility for regular operational or public use - a criteria for this list. Checking the photos from the 'towers' articles shows they do not have any facility to fulfil this criteria (some lattice towers have an observation structure as part of the tower so these would count). Robynthehode (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would oppose. TV- and radio-broadcasting - that is regular operation. Added 7 missed towers. 109.252.82.106 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot write 'oppose' and just add entries without consensus WP:CONSENSUS. I have removed all lattice towers with no regular operational or public access. TV and radio broadcasting is not regular operational access. These functions are performed automatically by the electronics in the towers and do not require human interaction. Do not revert without proper discussion here and consensus being reached. Robynthehode (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsure 

message: If we would not set the height limit the list will be endless. I would suggest 200 m - no sense to keep here lower, because there's a huge amount of them. Otherwise, all the towers of 3803 KM project must be included. --Figure19 (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No lower limit of height? 

message: The height of the Columbo Lotus Tower listed is not consistent. It is listed as being 350 meters tall and 1,150 feet high. That conversion is not correct. 350 meters is only about 1,148 feet high. That’s about two feet off. As a result, the height in meters has it shorter than the Strat, but the height in feet has it taller than the Strat. Jay72091(2) (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected height according to reliable source - CTBUH Robynthehode (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency of height of the Columbo Lotus Tower 

message: The Canton Tower is highlighted as having once been the tallest in the world. But the Tokyo Skytree is indicated to be the tallest in the world since 2009, and Canton Tower is indicated to be from 2010. I don't know what is going on here. Maybe there is an error or maybe an asterisk is needed to explain. AlainFournier (talk) 15:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canton Tower highlighted