Template talk:Supertall

message: I removed the Empire State Building from this template because it doens't really fit with the supertall template theme.  Also, there are lots of buildings over 1000 feet, including all of these buildings: :Category:Skyscrapers_over_350_meters and most of these :Category:Skyscrapers between 300 and 349 meters.  --Quasipalm 19:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussions

message: Could some editor who knows more about these structures than I sort them in some sensible manner, e.g. by status (built or proposed), and within these categories by height? Right now it's just a huge block of marginally inviting text. Sandstein 11:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've divided it into categories. I'm sure some asshole who prefers an illegible list will revert it. --87.82.23.37 15:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting 

message: Bit odd to have as a subcategory. Skinnyweed 17:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destroyed? 

message: This template is freaking huge. It would work just as well divided into several templates like "Supertall skyscrapers," "Proposed supertall skyscrapers," "Supertall oil platforms," etc. Recury 16:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support that.  When I started watching this template some months back it was less than half the length it is now.  Perhaps it could exist as separate templates with all of them pointing back to a "List of ..." page that has a combined list. --StuffOfInterest 17:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to say, there needs to be a list if you're going to split it. So yeah :) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split?

message: I mean, come on, there are pages where this template is 99% of the article!  Like Rogun Dam and Conemaugh Generating Station.  This really needs to be cut down in size.  -Quasipalm 02:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear hear. It's three pages long on my browser, simply ridiculous. I'm going to start splitting it up. Bryan 05:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There, I split off the chimneys into . My next target will be the observation and communication towers, I think, but for now I'm done. Bryan 06:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Done  Bryan 02:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: now. This template is finally getting down to a reasonable size. Bryan 23:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: . I'm thinking I might also split off the antennas, after which the remaining groups in this template would each be too small to be worth splitting off into a template of its own. That'd leave this template as a reasonably-sized little "catch-all" for the miscellaneous structures that don't fit neatly into other classifications. Bryan 00:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wayyyyyy to big

message: Oh, I should mention there was a brief discussion on my user talk page about the possibility of cross-linking these various groups of articles; User talk:Bryan Derksen#Template: Supertall. I personally feel that categories are the way to go with this sort of thing, and some appropriate categories already exist. Bryan 00:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross-linking these split-off groups somehow

message: Lakihegy Tower? - 314m 
- kgyt (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lakihegy? 

message: this does not show buildings at all. Another thing, HOW IS THE EIFFEL TOWER AN ANTENNA? Or the CN Tower? --Sneaky Oviraptor18talk edits tribute 19:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am mistaken, buildings are not structures. But still I need explaning how the Eiffel Tower or the CN Tower are antennas. --Sneaky Oviraptor18talk edits tribute 20:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: Why these are listed: Xiaowan Dam (292 m), Grande Dixence Dam (285 m), Xiluodu Dam (273 m), Elbe Crossing 2 (227 m), Shukhov tower on the Oka River (125 m)?
I thought that 'supertall' is over 300 meters. 82.141.75.73 (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think there was a definition. I think supertall is relative to the structure. A dam over 260m tall is supertall in my opinion.--NortyNort  (Holla) 17:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supertall? 

message: As far as I can see, there is no super-tall structure called "Amritsar TV Tower". Moreover, there is nothing matching the description of a super-tall TV tower in Amritsar.  --Shirt58 (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[Amritsar TV Tower]]"?