Talk:List of tallest structures

message: This list is very long, so I think that the list should be kept for buildings 450m+, because otherwise it is too long. ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 18:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's a good idea too. List of tallest structures in the world and List of tallest buildings and free-standing towers. Hm. ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 04:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *I agree, make a list for structures taller than 1,476 feet. Bye --Starionwolf 05:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still too long 

message: Is there a reason why three of the entries have a red tint to them? Lovok 11:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bgcolor 

message: The minimum height limit should be kept at 300m as this could include famous structures which are between 300-350 meters like the Eiffel Tower,Japan's Tokyo Tower, New Zealand's Sky Tower etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.95.231.94 (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Famousness is no subcriteria of Tallness and thus irrelevant for this table. 84.177.150.245 18:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but it does provide a frame of reference for people considering the list. How many times have things of great height been described in terms of Eiffel Towers, Everests or Empire State Buildings? Demi T/C 23:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, the List of tallest structures should contain no more than 90 entries. 84.177.167.69 08:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?Spartaz 08:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Article size 84.177.167.69 13:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 300 meter limit

message: This merge will help to keep Wikipedia simpler.--Jorfer 02:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess this is about the merge with list of towers. Simply put impossible. That list alone is already far too long, merging it into this list will result in an unreadable list of literally thousands and thousands of structures. Arnoutf 07:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As if this list isn't long enough already, and it is unlikely (though not impossible) that their are many more structures listed in their then here, but I could be proved wrong.--Jorfer 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest I think it is not a good idea. I have been struggling to keep the list of towers list clean (by removing masts, electric wire pylon, statues etc etc) and it is still a list that (IMHO) is way too long for practical use; for encyclopedic / browsing use. Merging that would only make things worse. To be honest I think the list in this article would benefit from focussing (what's in but especially what's out) rather than expansion. For example you could argue that of each type of structure only the top 10 should be taken in this list (I would be happy for the top 10 towers to be included); with the separate lists developed in their own right.Arnoutf 07:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving the full list is not a bad idea, but I am not saying to expand the lists. These lists are so similar that merging pretty much just involves a redirect. Just use Ctrl+F to see how many entries from the masts and towers are already on here.--Jorfer 21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: The table of radio masts in the list of tallest buildings and structures in the world article is not nearly as exhaustive as this one, not even for the ones above 600 meters; however, it's entirely possible some of the masts in that table are not listed here. Therefore, that table should be merged into this one; even to copy the over-600 meter section of this article into the other one would overwhelm what is already a long article. --RBBrittain 06:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger nomination

message: The text at the top of this page should probably be moved out of this article and into something like mast (tower).  —User:Mulad (talk) 03:00, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
Please check, if there is not listed any mast of the US under different names!
Try to find out all masts taller than 500 metres!
Emley Moor TV Tower and uperstacks are not guyed and belong to List of towers.
Please put the article on a correct form!
----
The word "mast" is never used for broadcasting towers in the US or Canada. 18.26.0.18 06:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oldest talk

message: At transmission tower there is an (incomplete) liste of mast collapse catastrophes. Please make this list complete!
:That is now on its own page at Radio masts and towers - catastrophic collapses--Spliced 11:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: List of catastrophic collapses of masts

message: Was KWTV Mast rebuilt in 1986? According to http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrResults.jsp?searchType=TRL there is no mast from a height around 480 metres built in 1954!
* I just noticed two duplicate entries for the KWTV Mast/Griffin Television Tower myself...with differing heights (1576 ft vs 1572 ft) and of course different construction dates. I have not found any evidence (aside from the FCC database) that indicates that it was built in 1986, and I'm not sure what exactly the FCC's date means. Therefore, I deleted one of the duplicate entries on this page. If you'd like to discuss this any further discuss it below or let me know on my talk page. Scootey (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: KWTV Mast

message: A policy discussion has been opened here to examine the question of how best to manage Wikipedia's growing collection of mast articles.
The proposal is to extend the table in this article (List of masts) and merge the information (location, coordinates, owner, purpose) into additional table columns.
Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy discussion on mast articles

message: Hi all.
This article doesn't really follow Wikipedia convention for List of... articles. Usually, such articles have—at most— a couple of paragraphs of introductory material describing the nature of the list. Lengthy descriptive material is most often placed in the main article on the topic. For the List of masts, this material belongs in Radio mast. By merging the content there, we avoid duplicating content and effort between the two articles. Also, this article already has some truly gigantic tables; shortening the list article certainly wouldn't hurt....
If one our resident mast experts would like to merge the content from here over into radio mast, that would be great. If nobody steps up, I'll take a (nonexpert) stab at it myself. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article format

message: These have been overlooked and need to be added. Sub-200m. Sleigh 23:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wind turbines

message: Congratulations and thanks to User:Ksax on finally doing the merge. I would prefer the name List of masts though - it's consistent with other lists in Wikipedia. -- I@n ≡ talk 17:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: Added a new section above, as ex-masts, while interesting (and I'm not suggesting removing them completely) should not be in the main tables. -- I@n ≡ talk 17:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dismantled/collapsed masts

message: Is it impossible to save the complete list in a sensitive way? Why not to move it into Wikisource?
Would be a good idea!
: Please note that Wikisource no longer accepts reference data, including tables of data or lists, per its inclusion guidelines. I've deleted a page recently created there with this list. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 10:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cannot the complete list be saved?

message: It would be good if editors familiar with the industry and the areas where these towers are located would fix the article names. Most of them appear to have been made up by whomever started this article, who clearly was not a native English speaker nor a U.S. broadcast engineer. (I would also point out that the "mast versus tower" confusion does not exist among the engineers I know -- they are universally "towers". "Mast" means something else. This and related articles currently privilege civil-engineering jargon over broadcast-engineering jargon, which seems an inappropriate choice to me. [Of course, they also privilege en_GB usage over en_US usage, which is so commonplace in WP as to be hardly noticeable even if still irritating.]) 121a0012 07:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If we're going to be stuck with all these articles

message: Most of the heights given in feet are way off, especially those towards the bottom of the list. Mgiganteus1 13:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup - Height inaccuracies

message: Is there a reason for having these linked when the individual articles are not independently notable and in most cases do not warrant separate articles? —Centrx→talk • 04:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the articles exist, they should be linked. Some are definitely notable, such as the Warsaw Radio Mast. If you don't think they deserve separate articles then AfD them. Mgiganteus1 04:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I came here is that about thirty of them were just deleted on AfD. I don't know if they were all linked from this list, but the red links here encourage others to create and re-create articles that end up AfDed, and then deleted again after re-creation; duplicate effort. —Centrx→talk • 04:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking 

message: The Balashikha Transmission Mast is the tallest mast outside of the USA? There are no other countries in the world with masts higher than 460 m? 141.157.73.48 18:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I find this hard to believe? 

message: This might be worth keeping an eye on. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/02/66694
There are a few other sources to back this up, though the company itself is still in the preliminary phases. At any rate, it should be quite tall and could very well be taller than The Burj or any guyed mast. 207.43.79.22 18:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kilometer-tall solar tower in Australia 

message: I advocate for putting Guyed mast UHF/VHF-transmission U.S. installations (marked amber) into a seperate table and remove them from this table. Reason: There are too many and they make this list too long, too unreadable and too insignificant. 91.35.152.192 10:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is POV bias highlighting US-only installations. If you highlight, it should be by type, or country, not just US guyed masts. 70.51.11.203 09:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperate list for Guyed mast UHF/VHF-transmission U.S. (marked amber at this time) 

message: Add geographical coordinates to all masts and structures in the list. This would allow to have a look at them by Google Maps.
Coordinates are available in the FCC-database. For most other structures, they are in the articles.
:Coordinates are available in strctrure's artile. I do not think it it wise to have it all here. --Jklamo 00:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add geographical coordnates to all 

message: Please add the geographical coordinates to all structures, if available. For radio masts and radio towers in USA you can find them in the FCC-database. For other structures extract them their article or Wikimapia.
:Ok, i am repating again:
Coordinates are available in strctrure's artile. I do not think it it wise to have it all here. Article is too big without them, place for coors is in each strctrure's artile. I am commenting them, until consensus reached about adding them. --Jklamo 14:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not blame this article about wikipedia deletion policy. List is too big now, coors can be found at List of tallest structures in the United States or List of tallest structures in the United States by height. --Jklamo 18:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Add coordinates''' 

message: The only images in this article should be of truly important structures around the world. This article is about the tallest in the world and not a list of the tallest structures by city. Therfore, an image of a building in Las Vegas should not be included. --Leitmanp 03:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Jklamo 23:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Because artile is 143 kb long, so it has problems described at Wikipedia:Article size, i think that it must be divided up. My proposal is to use 400 m limit and move 400-less content to another article. Share your opinion. --Jklamo (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a great idea. The article is too long and shortening it would be the best thing to do. --Leitmanp (talk|contributions) 05:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cutoff proposal 

message: The Burj Dubai is now 611.3 meters tall as of March 1, 2008. Look at Burj Dubai Skyscraper.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldek (talk • contribs) 01:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But, that it not a trustworthy source. The developer (Emaar) has not made any official statements regarding the Burj Dubai's status since 5 February 2008. I have reverted your edits because we should only base the current height of the Burj Dubai on official sources. Do not change the height back without discussing it here on the talk page, or without checking the height listed at www.burjdubai.com. For more information about this, please see Talk:Burj Dubai#Height in early March 2008. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 05:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burj Dubai as of March 1, 2008 

message: Fine if you won't give Burj Dubai it's own category and acknowlege its acheivement of being taller than the other buildings than no building will be acknowleged. By this reasoning there should not be any categories. If you don't want to keep with the pattern of 50 meter categories than we can't have any categories. All of them will now be over 400 meters because it is not fair if you don't give Burj Dubai it's own category. Thus all of the Buildings will just say over 400 Meters. You are advocating double standards that you are not playing by your own rules. Okay fine, you can have it your way, now all buildings will be over 400 Meters. You can't have it both ways. Either you choose to make different categories for every 50 meters or you just make all you buildings over a certain height. It seems to me that you would rather have all buildings over a certain height instead of different categories as you state imaginary rules that one building can't be in a category but you fail to show me where it states that. So I will go along with you and make all buildings into one category over 400 meters to stop the fight. Thank You.Maldek (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. My opinion is to keep headlines (categories) as they were in article for more than one year, thus is consensus about them and you need found consesnus about changing them. So Maledek, please stop your reverts. --Jklamo (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burj Dubai Category 

message: You should merge it because it is the same list. --65.2.36.252 (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, problem is the size of both list, this article is 86 kilobytes long, List of supertall structures is 58 kilobytes long. Per Wikipedia:Article size > 100 KB is unacceptable size, that is why i split old list and create these articles. --Jklamo (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think List of supertall structures should be renamed to List of tallest structures - part 2. It's presented as such in the text. Would such a move be reasonable? --Alvestrand (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bold and renamed the second half to List of tallest structures in the world - 300 to 400 metres. While I was at it, I also split off List of tallest structures in the world - 400 to 500 metres, which reduced the main article to a less unreasonable 49 Kbytes. (The split-off was 55 Kbytes, and what's now "part 3" is 68 Kbytes). If the list grows, we can split again. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[List of supertall structures]]

message: I was randomly visiting masts via Google Earth, and the KEDB tower, listed as dismantled (no date given) is still present in Google Earth. (Jan 26 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.246.45.199 (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  KEDB Tower 

message: It is not on the list of buildings under construction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingkey_Finance_Tower —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.246.45.199 (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingkey Finance Tower 

message: If there is just one picture in this article, it should be of the tallest man made structure, that is the Burj Dubai. Current picture is from the Warsawa Radio Mast in Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.52.215.30 (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The image on this article should be of the Burj Dubai

message: There are TONS of antenna towers over 500 meters not listed here. How can this be? Or is there something I don't know; like that these were measured in some way that doesn't count: WVIA-TV and WNEP-TV Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not mentioned by their actual height in the articles; they were listed by their HAAT; which is total garbage. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this also the case with the WJZY Transmitter, listed as being "2,000 feet tall" in the article? --Cruncher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it just me or is this EXTREMELY lacking?

message: The article itself mentions, right before the list, that "Structures under construction are included in main list if its current height is over 500 metres (1,640 ft)." Hence, 'planned' structures should not be included; I have corrected three entries listed as 'planned'; acquiring a permit for construction does NOT mean a building will see completion. The three entries I corrected:
*Pegasus Broadcasting Tower: Apparently completed. FCC registry still lists the status as "application granted," though a look at the location given shows there is indeed a rather tall mast there; given by the shadows compared to the nearby building, I'm removing the 'planned' tag, though it'd be better if there was better verification of it being completed.
*CBC Real Estate Tower Auburn: Accoding to the FAA registry, the registration for this mast has been canceled. And a look at the map Shows that at the location, there's only one mast: the already-built WNCN Tower.
*Beasley Tower: Possibly under construction or completed. A look at its location reveals that last time it was photographed, there was what very much looks like a mast construction site. However, because there's absolutely zero verifiable source to show that it HAS reached the requisite 500 meters in height, it's removed from the list. Contrast this to the Pegasus Tower, where the included Geohack link can at least show an image of it completed.
Granted, I recognize some of the caveats over relying on satellite imagery that can be years outdated, however the mentioned items in the list are themselves based on years-old data, and inclusion is all about verifiability. Hence, structures where at least a marginal amount of verifiability can be achieved is better than none, and those with none must be removed, regardless of whether it's actually true or not. Nottheking (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Planned' Structures

message: These lists are obvious redundant since Burj Khalifa is on every single list. All of these lists need reconsideration. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 16:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: World's tallest "fill in blank"

message: Is there a valid reason why United States entries have bgcolor=#cedff2 for each entry? If not I will remove. Thanks. Zarcadia (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  bgcolor=#cedff2 

message: Why don't all of the fields in the tables sort correctly? Ardric47 (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting 

message: American Towers Tower Randleman has the wrong coordinates which point to the WFMY Tower across the lake. The correct coordinates are: N 35 52' 2.6" W 79 49' 25.4"
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=621217
166.248.129.195 (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Towers Tower Randleman 

message: A recent edit added the Lualualei VLF transmitter to the current list by continent.  The edit leaves that table listing both Lualualei in Oceania and VLF Transmitter Woodside in Australia.  I thought Australia was in Oceania, while on the other hand I don't ever recall seeing Hawaii described as being in Oceania but instead part of North America by virtue of Hawaii being one of the 50 United States of America.  So what to do: Remove Woodside since it is shorter than Lualualei, or remove Lualualei since it is not in Oceania?
Looking deeper, I see the Oceania article says it includes Hawaii, as does List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania, yet List of Oceanian countries by population doesn't mention Hawaii at all.  Astronaut (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oceania or Australia 

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 elements appear to be caused by the separation of the tables and images. Refer to this Wikipedia (list-type) article for a proper printer-friendly layout using tables with images -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_German_Navy_ships  Printchecker (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template produces poor PDF (print) output 

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 13:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

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: Is there a reason why some oil platforms are included on the list, but not tension-leg platforms?  Guinness World Records considers the Magnolia ETLP to be the world's tallest structure, but it's not present in this list. 2601:644:1:B7CB:DD1C:ACA3:5314:CD70 (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil platforms 

message: The article described the location as "High Seas (US Exclusive Economic Zone)" however these terms are contradictory. See International Waters for details. Checking the location co-ordinates in the article shows that it is indeed well within the US EEZ, although outside of territorial waters. On the basis of those co-ordinates, I have removed the apparently erroneous reference to "High Seas". US EEZ seems to be the best description of its location for the purpose of the table. 203.213.126.226 (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petronius Platform location 

message: 89.245.157.175 (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tallest structures in the universe?