Jump to content

Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.74.132.246 (talk) at 01:37, 14 September 2007 (→Sears Tower and Taipei 101: the exact heights). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconArchitecture List‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tallest flagpole free-standing is listed twice

this is listed twice, with both listing something different. InlovewithGod 15:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Tallest free standing structure"

And what about the Eiffel Tower?

... Is listed twice. Why??LHD1116 18:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


i saw that Freestanding Steel Tower is (was) listed twice too, so i deleted the shorter one, which happened to be the eiffel tower lol (note i forgot to sign in before making the changes)Motorbyclist 05:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi. i took out the word "phallic" on the picture caption for the CN Tower. it's pretty obvious that it looks like a real large phallus, but did it have to be mentioned in the caption? lol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.131.133.141 (talk) 04:29, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Mubarak al-Kabir Tower

Why is this tower listed as the current talest building under construction, when it was only announced less than a month ago, will cost 75 billion to build, and will take 25 years to finish? Using ridiculous facts like that I might as well add my own highest tower under construction to the list, because I'm building it in my backyard out of straws. I figure it should be completed at some indiscriminate point in the future.

Sky Tower

I wonder why the 328 meter high Sky Tower of Auckland, NZ (www.skytower.co.nz) is missed??

This article only lists the single tallest structure in each category. As lovely as it may be, the Sky Tower does not top any of these categories. Mikeeg555 05:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In 1863 the tallest structure in the world was the " Mole Antonelliana " in Turin Italy, standing at 548 feet. the "Mole" is still standing and operational, it houses the Cinema Museum.

and? who cares about "the mole"? perhaps you didn't read the original post being in meters not feetMotorbyclist 05:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

Just for the record, under the listing for the Cologne Cathedral, it notes that it still has the "tallest Gothic spires". It hasn't had the tallest Gothic spire since 1890 when the Ulm Munster was completed.

The table that was previously on (a previous page, elsewhere -- The Anome) was pretty much cut and paste in, including explanatory notes, from [1]. This is not only copyrighted (though the information, of course, isn't, the presentation certainly is), it is copyrighted by a potential competitor of Wikipedia--someone who has a financial motivation to try to sue us for violations like this. Please be careful about things like this. --LMS

I guess it's slightly moot considering the original table has been removed, but if and when another "Tallest buildings" table gets added there should be a column indicating the building's classification; eg, "communication antenna" "office building" "tourist attraction" etc. That way all the various towers can be listed together, compared easily, and there will be no more war or strife in the world.

Good idea! I'll put that in talk:Worlds tallest structures -- The Anome

Boeing claims the world's biggest building is the 747 assmebly building. What size is it? --rmhermen

According to [2], 200 million cubic feet. --Brion

Since the dawn of history man has been trying to build the 'tallest building', 'tallest tower' or 'tallest structure' in the world. There seems to be much prestige in being home to the worlds tallest. So much in fact that this is a major issue on the political agenda of many countries. Many towers claim the title, and many cities quarrel about who is the winner. [3]

How come nobody seems to be gunning for the title of "largest"? It seems to have been in American hands for quite a while. Rickyrab 03:35, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Empire did not have antennas on it in 1931. In fact, the current antenna configuration dates only to the 1970s, after most TV broadcasters decamped to WTC. (At the time of September 11th, all but one New York-licensed TV station -- WNYE-TV being the exception -- were on WTC, and all but four FMs were on Empire, the exceptions being WKCR and WNYC [both at WTC], WNYE [in Brooklyn], and WNYU and WFUV [on their respective campuses].) 18.24.0.120 07:27, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Good point 18.24.0.120 (do you have a username?), you're right about the ESB antennas. I'm not too sure how to handle this in the table, but i'm keeping the ESB record as is for now because its spire was higher than other building at the time, even those with antennas. (Actually, I'm not very knowledgeable on the history of antennas as a technology, so I'm not sure if buildings included antennas of any significant height at the time).

Thus when I wrote "tallest antenna", I was implying "highest pinnacle including antenna if present"; this is to avoid a situation where the antenna record would be lower than the structural top record. Lawrence Lavigne 03:20, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

To answer your history question (which is really a technology question): no. For Medium Wave and Long Wave communications (all that had commercial value in 1931), there is no benefit to being up high (just the opposite, in fact, although they didn't understand it then). Although many of these stations were in fact on rooftops at the time, the sort of antennas used then (essentially just wires strung from one pole to another) would have been built only on flat-roofed structures. In the US, such stations have almost all gone over to vertical radiators (I could count the exceptions on one hand). In the mid-1930s, as VHF (also called "band I") first began to be exploited, broadcasters learned about the desirability of tall towers. Armstrong did much of his early FM work (during the time when Sarnoff was still supporting him) from Empire, and the first commercial TV and FM stations in the US operated from there. (NBC leased the entire 85th floor for both studios and transmitters.) Most FM and TV broadcasting in the US started out on rooftops, but outside of the large cities where skyscrapers were economical, stations quickly learned that it was better to build dedicated structures. During the 1950s, the title of tallest tower changed hands practically every few months, as there seemed to be no limit to the height at which a station could build. (The limit today is about 600 m or 2000 ft.) I believe the tallest self-supporting tower in the US today is the KCTV tower on Signal Hill in Kansas City. 18.24.0.120 17:42, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"The World Trade Center became the world's tallest buildings to be demolished - indeed, its site entered the record books twice on September 11, 2001, in that category, replacing the Singer Building, which once stood a block from the WTC site."

Does "that category" mean 4th category ? If not, the word category should be changed to avoid misunderstanding as the paragraph is full of categories. Jay 14:08, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The table is now all-metric,it would be more informative if it included heights in feet among its columns. Perhaps other language Wikipedias could make do with metric alone,but not English!

Also...I believe the One World Trade Center antenna was 1,728 feet,not 1,758.The Sears Tower antenna had been shorter but was rebuilt to be taller circa 2000,and it was at that time,not at the destruction of the WTC,that the Sears Tower took over the tallest-antenna-on-a-building record.--Louis E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

On the table, shouldn't the Petronas towers be counted as a single spot, or at least tied? That's the way every other such table on any subject I've ever seen has treated it. It seems small and I'd change it myself if I could do tables. Thanks, --68.95.142.253 23:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


BREN TOWER MISSED

Hi, the history on this page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_tallest_structures" needs to be updated dramatically as no reference is made to the "Bren tower" Here are some fact about the Bren Tower.

"The BREN Tower 1,527 feet tall, has been a focal point of attention ever since it was erected on the Nevada Test Site in 1962.

During its 30 years, it has been part of the Yucca and Jackass Flat skylines, and a platform for two important experiments --Bare Reactor Experiment, Nevada (BREN), and the High Energy Neutron Reactions Experiment (HENRE).

It was built by the Dresser-Ideco Company in Area 4 of Yucca Flat. Constructed of 51 thirty-foot sections of high tensile steel, the structure is higher than the Empire State Building's 1,472 feet. It is supported by 5 1/2 miles of guy wires designed to withstand winds exceeding 120 miles per hour. The tower was equipped with an outside hoist to lift scientific equipment, and a two-person elevator inside the tower which moved at 100 feet per minute. The tower weighs 345 tons. "

Perhaps this one has been over looked due to its top secret use.

Great site BTW. Cheers, ET1965

CN Tower

According to the Guinness Book of World Records the CN Tower is actually considered to be the Tallest Building in the World. It originally was not given this title when it opened June 28th (only tallest free-standing structure), 1975; however, in 1995 they revised their decision and proclaimed the CN Tower was infact the World's Tallest Building and Tallest Free-Standing Structure on Land.

The claim that 'The CN Tower is excluded from these categories because it is not a "habitable building", which is defined as a frame structure made with floors and walls throughout.' is false because it does indeed have floors and walls throughout. The only difference between the CN Tower and other buildings in the list is that those floors and sections are offlimits to the public because they do not involve the tourist or restaurant functions of the building.

Sure it may be true that only 4 floors are technically accessible by the public: Glass Floor Level (342m), Lookout Level (346m), 360 Restaurant Level (351m), and finally Skypod Level (447m); however, in reality in the main upper levels (the big bubble) there are in fact 7 floors that house various communications equipment such as the Raydome and communications masts.

        • When people say "floors throughout" they don't mean "100% of the occupiable space has floors throughout" (which may be true about the CNT). What they mean is "100% of the _entire structure_ has floors throughout", i.e. Sears Tower. The CN Tower obviously doesn't fit this definition. 90% of the interior of the structure does not have floors at all. Its just concrete, and maybe there's an emergency stairwell, but that's probably it. No living space. The world's tallest "building" has to have living/office space throughout.

To quote Ron Klemenic, chairman, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the body that decides the world's tallest building:

When asked why the CN Tower _is not_ considered the tallest building in the world: "The CN Tower is the tallest freestanding structure in the world, but we don't consider it to be a building: it's a tower....because the lion's share of the tower is not occupiable space, it's simply a tower or a shaft."

The tallest "building", at least for a couple more years until Burj Dubai is topped out, is Taipei 101. Or if you consider 100% of the building, including antennae that do not contribute to the architecture (to paraphrase Mr. Klemenic), then it's the Sears Tower. He says "For the Sears Tower its pretty clear...the antennae don't count, because if you remove them, the fundamental appearance of the building doesn't change...whereas if you removed the spire from the Chrysler Building in New York, it doesn't look like the Chrysler Building any longer." He goes on to say how that definition is the only reason the Petronas Towers shortly held the title, because their spires are considered integral to the architecture. Without them, the Petronas Towers would have been slightly too short to gain the title, as the Sears roof is higher than the base of the Petronas spires.

Source ~ Guiness Book of World Records, 2005. Ypsidan 16:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

CONFLICTING INFORMATION:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taipei_101

Says Tapei 101 has 106 floors. This article says 101.. Which is it?

Never mind.. its because 5 are below ground

Huge new skyscraper planned in Dubai

It was recently announced that a new tower called the "Burj Dubai" is going to be built in Dubai, UAE. The planned height is about 800 meters and it should be completed by 2008 according to this article:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996781

Should we add this to the article? 

      yes u should tell me more information

Current-standing

Why are the WTC towers in this table, either the table should be renamed, or the towers removed. ed g2s • talk 19:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. The strikeout is somewhat better, but they really shouldn't be in the list at all. Same goes for the Warsaw radio mast. -- complex, 04 Feb 2005

Agreed. The Warsaw radio mast is confusing. It should be removed. -- Aethralis 08:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Wha??

Makes no sense: 1 CN Tower, Toronto (ON), Canada 1976 553 1,815 – 2 Ostankino Tower, Moscow, Russia 1967 577 1,894 –

To quote the Ostankino Wiki page:

"As of 2005, (Ostankino) remains the highest freestanding structure in Eurasia.

The tower's construction began in 1963 and was completed in 1967. It held the record for the tallest free-standing structure in the world for one decade, until the CN Tower was built in Toronto, Canada (1976). In 2003, media reports claimed a new antenna had been installed, increasing the tower's height to 577 metres (1893 feet). However, the new antenna is the same height as the old. Plans for a newer, higher antenna have been considered, but funding has not yet been secured."

Ostankino stands 540 m, 1,772 feet. Ypsidan 16:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest free standing light structures?

Has anybody done research on "tallest free standing light stucture". im not sure but i think the University of Buffalo (in Buffalo, NY) holds or is close to the record at 186ft(approx 57meters). i could be wrong. I think it would go well on your website.

thank you, Kevin email: LowNsunkist@aol.com


Stratosphere Las Vegas

Why is the Stratosphere Las Vegas not included in the table? It is 350m 1,149ft tall, clearly taller than other builiding listed in the article.

BBC tallest buildings

The bbc have a different take on the tallest buildings, and I'm more likely to believe them: see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4714107.stm#graphic

62.254.0.32

THe world's tallest structures chart is mistaken gravely. IT places sears tower as higher than tapei 101 and petronas towers. Sears tower is only 1450 feet high, Tapei 101 is 200 feet higher than that. Here is a chart http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41345000/gif/_41345305_tallest_build2_inf416.gif

This page is broken. You can even visit the Sears tower official website to check the fact that it is infact only 1450 feet high. GG. Tapei 101 is actually 1671 feet, while petronas are 1483 feet. Someone fix this page, please.

Someone fix this page, it is extremely wrong.

HERE IS THE RIGHT ORDER

Tapei 101 (1671 feet), Petronas Towers (1483 feet), Sears tower (1450) feet. THIS ARTICLE SIMPLY GIVES FALSE IMFORMATION

The discussion regarding heights, and height differences is present. The Petronas Towers are not in the classification, and the height of Sears is given including the antenna.

Tallest sculpture

Apparently the Spire of Dublin is the world's tallest sculpture (i.e. it serves no purpose, no antennae, no nothing). In other words, the world's tallest useless object.

Is this true?

Should it be mentioned in this article?

zoney ♣ talk 20:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mention it if you wish as a relevant side note. It certainly beats out the statue of liberty. --Ctrl buildtalk 22:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Platform?

I have read that the Mars Tension-leg Platform (Gulf of Mexico) [4] [5] is 3250 ft. (990.6 m) tall... why is this not mentioned here? --Mm35173 21:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit the article is you wish, but please mention that given the construction of oil platforms, the use of boyant materials (many platforms can be moved from place to place due to this boyant/ship like property) that at many times you can only count the height above the water level as comparable to free standing stuctures. That said, the height above the ocean bottom is of note and merrit, and the tallest (deepest) of these structures should be noted in an encyclopedic article about tall structures. Just please insert only the "world's tallest" of these. I personally want to know what the world's tallest water tower is. --Ctrl buildtalk 20:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering whether tension-leg platforms should qualify as structures. The platform sections certainly are structures, but the bulk of their height comes from the teethers that hold them to the sea floor. [6] It seems disingenuous to call them structures as these tethers seem to anchor it in place more than give it structure. - Ektar 16:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TLP's definitely don’t qualify. They are floating structures. And if you would want to include floating structures, there are deeper moored spar's and semi-submersibles. BoH 03:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we're not considering floating structures, why is the Petronius Platform being mentioned? Is the Petronius Platform a floating structure? The article mentions that only 75 metres is above water. --Jibran1 17:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petronius is a compliant tower, which is not floating. The tower fully supports the deck. BoH 19:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Habitual or Habitable

This article throws around the term "habitual" a lot. SHouldn't it be "habitable?" Habitual only refers to "habit" as far as I can tell -- not "habitat." --69.44.116.57 14:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Seegoon 22:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

I've added the accuracy dispute -- I don't think it's been resolved as to why the information presented here is so different from this graph presented by the BBC: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41345000/gif/_41345305_tallest_build2_inf416.gif Which is wrong?

I've done some research, and it's pretty clear that the BBC's chart is way off. It appears they were confused about the different heights (building height, roof, structural, spires, etc.). As such, I've removed the accuracy dispute. BOO BBC!!
Here is another image, this one from the NYTimes that shows that the BBC is off: [7] --Quasipalm 02:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda late, but the BBC graph makes is quite clear that they are not including antenna in their comparisons(see how they are coloured in a different shade of grey...below the lines that indicate height?)....so the graph is perfectly accurate.

Burj Dabai

I've reverted an addition by an anonymous editor a couple of times here, so I just want to make sure I'm not off-base here. Any agreement that Burj Dabai shouldn't be added to the list of "Tallest buildings in world history" until it actually is? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Cleared as filed. 21:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Burj Dabai should not be added until it's an actual, habitable building. For one, the actual height is still a secret, and all of the numbers you here online are estimates. Secondly, Dabai just canceled one of it's giant skyscraper projects and decided to move it to another location (someday) because of foundation issues -- which says to me that this could happen to the burj dabai as well. The Burj still belongs in the "Proposed record-breaking structures" section, along with the Freedom Tower. --Quasipalm 02:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


There is a discrepancy of the height of the building between its own page and this page. Which height is the true height?

I also agree to the Crystal Ball issue concerning the Burj Dubai. This is coming from the point of a fan of the building. I would like to see it be added to the list 'legitamately'. And including it as of the time on my timestamp in my signature, would be an illegitamate win and not worth as much. I would like to see it added to the records officially, legitamately, and without worry of the Ryugyong Hotel fiasco in Asia where it was never completed.
And on a seperate note, concerning the above comment, right now, there is no official number anywhere so depending on what source you go to, there will be a discrepancy in the height. We won't know till its completion in 2008.
スミス ナサニアル 04:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of 12 September 2007 the Burj Dubai has surpassed the CN Tower in height. True, it is not yet habitable, but it is now the tallest freestanding structure in the world. One of many reports---> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/09/12/cntower-surpassed.html See here for the current height according to the Burj Dubai site: http://www.burjdubai.com/ Mikeeg555 05:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chimney listed twice

There are two rows for Chimney in the table. I don't know if there is a missing qualifier or if the shorter one is old data to be removed, so I point it out and leave it to those who know to fix it. Długosz

Furthermore, the Sudbury Superstack (chimney) is 1250ft and is the 2nd tallest chimney in the world. Chimeny is listed twice, and the Sudbury Superstack is taller than the second entry. Why???

copyvio by 'maddox'

this image on The Best Page in the Universe is clearly a violation of the GNU-copyrighted image in this article. Here's the page it was on: [8]


Why here is not Ostankino tower?

I understood, that the tallestness here is treated within category (which is not clear from article in itself), so since Ostankino tower is in the same category as CN Tower, and the CN Tower is taller, hence only last is present in list. But where are these categories came from? If I invent separate category for ostankino tower (or even for my village house!), can I place Ostankino tower in this list at that time? Dims 22:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your indignation. We were told in school that the Ostankino tower is the tallest structure in the world. Actually, it's not any more. So cool off. --Ghirla | talk 00:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, that it is not tallest now. But I don't understand, why it is not in list, entitled as 'World's tallest structures', where such structures, as Borj-e Milad are present. Borj-e Milad is shorter, but it is in list nevertheless. It seems to me, that it is some category cheat, so my qestion is: where these categories came from? You evaded this question! Dims 01:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main reason that the Ostankino tower is not listed is because it is structurally similar to the CN Tower. I do, however, agree that it could be capriciously added to this list with a simple qualifier such as "that has withstood a large fire" or "with a Russian name."
I definitely agree with your point that the categories in this article are getting rediculous. I am removing the Borj-e Milad because it clearly does not belong. Since the qualifier "largest functional structure" can apply to any building the largest "functional" building in the world would be the tallest "Freestanding structure with largest functional structure".
Nonetheless I think we need to be more judicious when adding categories. I personally have the biggest problem with the following categories:
  • Any structure that is incomplete, under construction or no longer standing.
  • "Partially guyed tower" - Every guyed tower is partially guyed. A fully guyed tower would look like a pyramid.
  • "Chimney - freestanding" - The GRES-2 Power Station Chimney looks freestanding to me.
  • "Light advertisement" - The "Bayer Cross Leverkusen" might be the largest ad in the world, but then any building with a company name or logo on it would qualify here.
I think some of the other categories are bad too, but these are probably the worst. - Ektar 20:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some of these categories are really bad. bob rulz 01:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. --Ghirla | talk 07:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would defend each of these categories. I think you misunderstand what is meant by "partially guyed" -- "The Gerbrandy Tower consists of a concrete tower with a height of 100 metres on which a guyed aerial mast is mounted." And the GRES-2 chimney might 'look' like it doesn't have guy wires, but can you find a reference that definitely says it doesn't? The Bayer Cross is clearly an advertisement and nothing else. A building with a logo on it isn't exclusively an ad. JohnnyB 12:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what the Gerbrandy Tower consists of... I think you don't understand the issue. The problem is with the wording "partially guyed." Does that mean that "partially guyed" ONLY refers to a concrete tower with a guyed aerial mast on top? That seems like it should be called a "guyed aerial mast on freestanding concrete" because as I stated EVERY guyed tower is a "partially guyed" tower. (To put it another way, any guyed aerial mast on top of a building, structure, etc. would qualify for "partially guyed.")
I have not been able to find evidence that the GRES-2 is not guyed, but I think that, since most chimneys are not guyed, the onus should be on someone finding evidence that the GRES-2 IS guyed.
As to the Bayer Cross, I brought up the wrong issue. The problem really is in the category: "Light advertisement." I agree that it is exclusively an ad, but at what point do we stop? Why not also have the tallest unlit advertisement, tallest lit wooden advertisement, tallest unlit wooden advertisement, etc. - Ektar 15:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed two Russian structures from the list because they were in categories already listed. I don't think we should be making up categories simply to fit these structures into the list somehow. JohnnyB 12:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troll A platform

This list is missing the Troll A condeep platform, the largest structure ever moved. With a total height of 472 m weighing 1.2 million tons it was moved 200km over 7 days to its current location in 1995.

Well, this is Wikipedia so you know what to do: be bold!
Atlant 13:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest Hotel?

Shouldn't there be a section on that? In which case the Burj al-Arab in Dubai, U.A.E. would be tallest.

I'm going to remove the Burj Dubai entry for tallest hotel. The hotel will only occupy the lower 37 floors of the building which is less than 160 m. The tallest finished hotel in the world is Burj al-Arab at 321m. --Jibran1 14:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV image

Note that the so called "comparison of top skyscrapers" image is obviously POV towards category 4 of buildings. There are lines protruding from the top of each profile indicating the building's height under category 4, but none of the other categories. The graying out of the buildings' substance makes it impossible to distinsh between antennas and spires, (which are tough to distinguish in any picture to begin with). The buildings are arranged in a tallest-to-shortest order congruent with their category 4 rankings but incongruent with any other ranking. This picture is posted in about a bajillion different pages on wikipedia, it's probably one of the most used pictures related to tall skyscrapers on this website. Nevertheless, I dont really care if its removed or not. It will be obselete in a couple of years anyways. Besides, a much bigger issue is the fact that there's a difference between a building and a structure, just as there is a difference between apples and fruits, or humans and animals. 18.251.6.240 18:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong title

This page's title is misleading and ambiguous. First, "world" is far to diffuse, especially if meant to denote Earth. Second, "structure" is also not very clear. If "man-made structure" or "artifact" or "artificial structure" is meant, why not say so? I would suggest to move this to Tallest man-made structures. Kosebamse 08:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The primary connotation of "world" is Earth, as humanity has yet to inhabit, or find evidence of any other life-forms inhabiting, any other planet. We don't refer to the "Seven Wonders of Earth", but the "Seven Wonders of the World."
Also, "structure" is quite clear, especially because your proposal to move to "man-made structures" would imply an article about "Tallest natural structures" and (potentially) a minor flame war over whether or not the pyramids were man-made. IMacWin95 00:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Platforms

Is the height of the oil rig platforms measured from the ocean floor to the tip? If so, i dont think they should be included on this list. Thoughts?--Gephart 00:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Construction

"whether structures currently under construction can be included in the list"

I don't see how this can create controversy. It's clear that a building that doesn't exist - even if designed or partly built - is not a tallest structure. --A Sunshade Lust 00:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. These entries should either be removed from the list, or two lists should be made: one including only buildings that have been built, and the other including ones that are either under construction or proposed to build.--Gephart 05:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest skyscrapers section

The rankings go from 25 to 29 in the world's tallest skyscraper table. Any reason? --MZMcBride 20:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up

This article needs a complete clean-up. Anyone want to volunteer?--Gephart 22:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sears Tower and Taipei 101: the exact heights

I would like to straighten out some discrepancies that have appeared in the heights for Taipei 101 and the Sears Tower.

The architectural height for Taipei 101 was originally published as 508 m/1667 feet, but this is incorrect because it neglects to count the small platform on which the entire structure is elevated from street level. By all conventions of building height measurement, this platform should be included in the height because it is part of the building structure and rises cleanly above the surrounding sidewalk. The exact height from sidewalk level to the architectural top is 509.2 m (1670 feet and 7 inches). The measurement has been verified from blueprints by editors of Emporis.

The Sears Tower's height was originally published as 1450 feet, but according to John Zils, one of the engineers at Skidmore Owings & Merrill who worked on the building, the commonly seen 1454 foot figure stemmed from a misprint in a newspaper which was propagated to almost all sources until the Petronas-Sears controversy in 1998 when the press was paying attention again and the engineers had the chance to correct it to 1450. However, even this was not quite correct, as it neglects to include a steel slab on top of the elevator penthouse. The exact height without the steel slab is 1450 feet, 1.5 inches; with the slab it is 1450 feet and 7 inches (442.14 m). As heights are by convention rounded to the nearest foot or meter, 1451 is now the recognized height. This is measured from the Franklin Street entrance, which is about 5 feet lower than the "postal" main address on Wacker Drive. While an argument could be made for measuring the building from the Wacker entrance (which would make the Sears Tower about 5 feet shorter), no one has made a serious challenge to using the Franklin entrance as the benchmark. Either entrance could be construed as the building's "main entrance", if that makes a difference. Also the Wacker entrance is elevated above ground (it is the upper level of Wacker Drive) whereas Franklin Street is a true ground-level entrance. As with Taipei 101, this information has been verified from blueprints by editors of Emporis. --Montalto 04:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 


 But isn't the actual rooftop height of Taipei about 60 m shorter than the 508 m (or 509 m) figure ?  From the illustrations I've seen, the oft-quoted 508/509 is the height including the antenna/spire.

Port tower complex

Removed port tower complex link, why?- Mm11 12:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest "buildings" in world history ?

The Washington Monument and Eiffel Tower are not buildings. I believe Mole Antonelliana was (by some measure or other) tallest building at some point in this interval. jnestorius(talk) 12:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't the Washington Monument and the Eiffel Tower buildings? They're not habitable buildings, but they're both self-supporting. bob rulz 22:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However we define "building" we should be consistent, at least within a single table! Either remove Washington Monument and Eiffel Tower or else remove Petronas and Taipei 101 and add the CN Tower. jnestorius(talk) 08:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CN Tower - Tallest Building in the World

The CN Tower page states as fact that it is the tallest building in the world. Please help edit the page to reflect what official sources state. Also please contribute to the discussion on Talk:CN_Tower#Consistency. It was pointed out there that the World's tallest structures page does not cite any sources, so it would be useful if those could be provided as well. Uris 19:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Highest Point" vs. "Top of Antenna" Discrepancy

Can anyone explain why the "Highest Point" on the Sears Tower is 300 feet lower than the top of its antenna?

If you find term "highest point" used in that regard, it is misleading. "Highest architectural point" is different, however: it refers to the highest point in the building "as designed". Anything on top of that is considered a sort of furniture, being easily mutable and quasi-temporary. The "tip height" (maximum height including antennae) of the Sears Tower has changed at least 3 times since it was built, and such changes are common for other buildings. Montalto 03:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncompleted building vs. Hollow concrete shell

The Ryugyong Hotel is not under construction, nor is there any feasable way the building could ever be (or could ever have been) completed given the structural integrity of the components used. Calling it an "unfinished building" implies otherwise. I suggest a permanent change in the row to "Hollow concrete shell" which is a much more apt description of the structure. --NEMT 19:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the building really can't be completed, and it's not the highest anything of any sort (which seems to be the case), the best solution would appear to be to simply remove it. After all I can plan to build a 2000 story building in my back yard, but the pile of sand I put in the corner does not warrant an entry on the list either. But compare and contrast with Bay-Adelaide Centre before making a change. Maury 19:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; I should read things more thoroughly. Alex Klotz 16:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest wind turbine in the world?

Does anyone know what/where it is? Maybe it can be added to the list? I'm curious...

  • The highest one must be this: [9]. 205 m to the top by a 160m tower and a diameter of 90m.

Linkspam?

Anyone else think the external links section is getting a bit large and repetitive? I wanted to ask before I went ahead and trimmed some, as I'm not sure what might be best. A lot of these say pretty much the exact same thing at the article and each other, and the general 'rule' for external links is that they /add/ info, not repeat it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still unknown very tall structures

Although already nearly all structures taller than 300 metres are in list of world's tallest structures, there are still some transmitters used for high power LF-transmission, which may bcause of physical reasons antenna towers taller than 300 metres. Please find out their height and wrote articles of them!

LORAN-C


CHAYKA

Alpha (radio navigation)

wikitable sortable

The big "Tallest structure by category" table was recently made a "sortable" table. This seems to be a new feature. Whenever I try to use the sort buttons, it breaks the table. One of the entries from "Category" column will always end up in the "Structure" column. I have tried it in Firefox 1.5 and Internet Explorer 6.0, and they both screw up the table. I'm reverting back to a regular table for now. It is a neat idea, but it should work first. The old version can be found here --Transfinite 03:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give up....

Anyone ELSE wanna keep reverting the vadalism the IP User is putting? I was never sure if using those warnings on talk pages was supposed to be reserved for admins or not, but I don't feel comfortable using them as a normal person. Sigh. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The warnings can be used by anyone. There is a big table of them at WP:TT --Transfinite 18:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A manmade structure taller than the Burj Dubai, even when the latter is complete

The gold mines under South Africa are the world's deepest: they extend more than 3.5 kilometers under ground. In order to get to the bottom, workers obviously have to ride something and/or take corridors. It is said that a trip in a cage to the bottom of one of those takes an hour: obviously, someone could argue that the system of lifts and tunnels could constitute a "structure" - and such a structure could arguably be the world's tallest (remember, height is from top to bottom). 68.36.214.143 01:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC) I think the word you are looking for is Deepest not Tallest. There are lots of deep workings round the world - looks like a good idea for an article?? --Spartaz 19:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Needle

How is this the tallest tower? Its not even among the tallest towers. I am changing it to CN tower. I'd prefer the tower row be removed completely. Aniket ray 11:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borj-e-Milad (Tehran) is missed

Borj-e-Milad with the height of 435 meters is not listed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.5.218.156 (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Is it because it is located in Iran????Nimanas 11:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Nimanas

Potala Palace

I think the Potala Palace in Tibet deserves mention. It arguably eclipsed the Pyramids when it was built in the 7th century, however I don't know its exact height then. Its present height is 117 meters, and it has had that height from the 17th century. However, at that time it would have been smaller than the Cathedrals. Also, it is built on a hill, so I'm not sure how exactly its height is measured. This website has some info: http://www.regenttour.com/chinaplanner/lxa/lxa-sights-potala.htm . Thanks, 75.18.160.94 18:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)ChrisM.[reply]

Petronas Towers are taller than the Sears Tower

Hello? What the heck?!! The Petronas Towers are 452 m. tall, and the Sears are 443 m. tall. But the graph on the main page shows the sears tower is 527 m. tall, and the petronal toweres 452 m. tall. Someone please do some research and take that graph out and replace it with correct information!!!

The graph is correct, as it shows the height to the top of the Sears Tower's antennae (which rises to 527 m). The Sears has a taller roof, pinnacle, and habitable floor than the Petronas Towers, so on a graph it would appear taller. It is only because of the Petronas Towers' spires that they are officially taller. On a graph that shows pinnacle height, as this one does, the Sears is actually taller (not officially, only be pinnacle height) than the Petronas Towers. Raime 00:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

3 articles were merged into this one to avoid repition. I did not incorporate it as I will leave it open to discussion below on how to proceed.--JEF 02:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest flag tower dispute

Why no mention of this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kijong-dong

At 160m it is taller than the flagpole listed. An error or a case of "Opression by ommission" because it is the DPRK? (North Korea for the uneducated)--80.47.165.24 11:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main pic

Although the former tallest, the opening image is rather ugly to me. I'd like to suggest a change, perhaps to the CN Tower. The next picture is hideous, with the glare. Reywas92Talk 21:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bad merge

Why is it that 'List of tallest buildings and structures in the world' ends, and the merged 'List of tallest structures in the world' simply begins af if there are two articles in one article? Towers over 300m is much too long and takes up half of what is here. The under construction towers part is also much too long. After that, the tallest structures by use is just plain redundant. Then, the 'by country' part contradicts the article title.

My suggestion: undo the merge and delete everthing under the first External links so that there are 9 sections in the TOC. I will be happy to do the work myself. Reywas92Talk 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you title an article List of tallest buildings and structures in the world, it is naturally going to be a large article because it encompasses so much. A List of tallest buildings in the world already exists so this article can either split with some info going to that article and some going to the List of tallest structures in the world or accept the merged info and find a way to incorporate it into the article.--JEF 23:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely sure what you are trying to get across, but either way, how it is now is horrible. Reywas92Talk 23:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pharos Lighthouse

If memory serves, the Pharos Lighthouse was taller than the Great Pyramid while the Lighthouse was still standing? Am I wrong? 141.157.73.48 19:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burj Dubai

Why is this listed... unless it is (while still being under construction) taller than the radio masts? gren グレン 03:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Merge 2

We definitely need to fix this mess somehow.--JEF 02:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By country is much too long already. Leave that how it is. The tables in Tallest buildings are very nice, they should be copie\d into here. Structures is mainly radio/transmitter masts; it should stay how it is. Basically, I think it is mostly fine, but if no one else does, then I could sway to a merge/split. Reywas92Talk 21:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my support for the merge and split. A name change would be better than a split (such as List of tallest architectural structures in the world (simple) and List of tallest architectural structures in the world (detailed)). It also doesn't make sense to clutter this page with the country list as this is neatly arranged article.--JEF 20:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Nikolaikirche

The article said that this church's tower was the highest building from 1847 until 1876, but its tower wasn't finished until 1874 (cfr. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/St.-Nikolai-Kirche_%28Hamburg%29). So I changed its start date to 1874 but didn't change the end date of the previous entry yet as I'm not sure there weren't other contenders between 1847-1874. Interesting list btw!

Eureka vs. Q1

The tallest residential building to architectural top is in fact Q1, not Eureka, although the latter is taller in two out of the four categories Leon 00:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed record-breaking structures

I'm voting that this section be turned into a table, much like the tables above this. I feel the content expressed should really be on that specific wiki page. I'm no wikipedia expert so I not sure if there is protocol to follow. Mbubel 18:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of world's tallest chimneys

Chimneys belong together with skyscrapers and towers ( guyed and free-standing) to the tallest structures of the world. Nevertheless tables with timelines of the development of world's tallest chimney are obviously not available. But it may be interesting to know how tall was the tallest chimney in 1850, in 1900 and in 1950 and where it was? Could someone do such reasearch?

Central mast of NSS Annapolis - year of built?

Does someone know when the centre mast of NSS Annapolis was built? ( The year 1968 in http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=57204 may be wrong). If it was built before 1945, it was until 1950 world's tallest guyed mast!

TV Tower

Ostankino has been listed as the tallest TV Tower. Do not add another TV Tower to the list if its not taller than Ostankino. If there is a good reason why Ostankino should not be the tallest TV Tower please mention it here in the talk page. Aniket ray 06:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the CN Tower also a TV tower? The CN Tower and Ostankino tower seem functionally the same: both are massive, free-standing TV towers with elevators reaching high-altitude sections with observation decks and restaurants. For that matter, aren't the even taller guyed masts (e.g. KVLY) also "TV towers"? Fredwerner 04:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tallest TV mast is the KVLY-TV mast. The tallest free-standing TV tower is the CN Tower. Are you trying to create a category that does not include the CN Tower just so Ostankino can the on the list? JohnnyB 14:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysler Building vs. 40 Wall Street

As I remember, 40 Wall Street was briefly taller than the Chrysler Building, whose developer brought up the sizable spire at the last minute to win the sort of contest that existed between the two. If this is the case, why doesn't 40 Wall appear on the historical list? --Tothebarricades 07:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the Eiffel Tower is taller. So 40 Wall Street was the tallest building, but not structure. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Towers section

Someone is still vandalizing Towers and Other Structures for comparison section in Currently-standing tallest skyscrapers listed by height to the architectural top, please explain me why is someting better than height based list there. --Jklamo 15:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eiffel Tower

Is there a special reason, why Eiffel Tower in Paris is not listed between the world's tallest buildings ? Prunk 06:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not a building. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Towers?

Is this a legitimate category of tower that is recognized by any organization that measures buildings? It seems like the kind of category that someone just added to this article so that the Petronas Twin Towers would permanently be on the list even once their height was surpassed. Similarly with the five-sided buildings. Just wondering if there's any legitimate reason for including those categories, since they really are just buildings as those in the general building category TheHYPO 23:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if no self-appointed organization has a category for tallest twin towers, it still remains as an objective, measurable fact that the Petronas Towers are the tallest twin towers in the world. This Wikipedia article reflects that fact. It is a fact that some Wikipedia readers may be interested in. --JHP 02:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an objective fact that the tallest building on my street is my house... but that doesn't make it a fact of any notabilityand definately does not belong on this list. Wikipedia (particularly lists) ought not contain data that is of no notability. If no book, organization or official listing group recognizes these categories, they ought be deleted. There is a category for buildings. Subdividing buildings seems arbitrary. 5-faced building? Who cares? Sears tower has like... 20 faces - can it forever exist on the list under that category? I can create any category I want to fit in virtually any building I want. I would like to see invented categories like this deleted. If I went up to any person on the street, I think they would all agree that a flagpole is an independant type of structure. An electricity pylon is a unique type of structure. A Church is a unique type of structure. But 5-sided building is just a subclass of building - which is not even valuable because it's not like a majority of other buildings in contention are 4-sided. Is the Taipei 101 the tallest round building (or one-sided)? TheHYPO 05:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you about the 5-sided one (it was added pretty recently anyway), but twin towers ARE most certainly a notable and unique type of structure, all things told. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest Building Section

Generally this article adds to the confusion, but especially this section listed above. The Council uses ONLY one category to determine the official world's tallest. The others are additonal information collected on buildings but do not confer any "supreme title" on any of the structures. Also, the official criteria has been the same from the 1930's to now since during the 40 Wall Street and Chrysler race for tallest. Either correct it or I will change in two days.Gary Joseph 23:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a self-appointed organization has one particular measure does not mean that other thinking people cannot use other objective measures. This article reflects that. Counting the spire is stupid. Someone could build a one-story building with a 2000 foot spire and claim to have the tallest building in the world. --JHP 02:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, your example is telling since in my town, there are two buildings which have spire that account for more than 25% of their official heights. Anyway, it did not seem to be a problem when that same organization said Sears was tallest for thirty-some years. I bet if they changed the categories and made Sears tallest, no one would would question their legitimacy. Besides all other organizations, including BOMA, recognizes them. They are not self-appointed. Read a book... or two.Gary Joseph 03:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest Building by Function?

Under the table "Tallest building by function", Recreational is listed as: Stratosphere Tower

First of all, is the Stratosphere not the same as the CN Tower, in that, it's not a building at all, so shouldn't fit on this list? And if it does fit on this list, should the CN Tower, as an observation tower and restaurant, not be considered a recreational building as well? Or does its use as an antenna negate that aspect of it's use (so no buildings with antennae can be on that list)? I would also like to suggest that Burj Dubai being listed as the Tallest office building is premature, in that at this time, it has no functional offices. TheHYPO 03:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like section Tallest structure by category, these section are from the most part unreferenced mess, paritally including user-created categories created to include his favourite structure. I tried to clean-up them multiple times, but in a few days sections are populated and expanded again. --Jklamo 11:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest cleaning it up, and putting an HTML warning (in the form <!-- Whatever you want to say --> - it will only show up to editors and not in the article. If people continue to return crap to the article, you can consider asking for protection or semi-protection for the article. TheHYPO 05:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to clean it up (i.e., noting that Burj Dubai is not habitable and therefore does not have a specific function yet, adding mixed use and library sections). But TheHYPO, you're definitely right about the Stratoshere Tower. It needs to be removed; there is no question about it. The Stratosphere, like the CN Tower, is not a building, and therefore should not be in the "Tallest Buildings by Function" Section. Raime 06:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burj Dubai Main Image

This image is nice, but it does not accurately portray the current status of Burj Dubai. I think we need to replace it with a recent image of the building, showing its current height and construction status. Also, since Taipei 101 is still the "official" tallest building, shouldn't it have an image included somewhere near the top of the article? Raime 15:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Even at 800 meters, it won't be the tallest manmade object

The Qinghai-Tibet railroad spans more than one kilometer in height, I think, and is the highest railway in the world.... and there are deeper mines than 800 meters. And some might start finding ways to argue that such objects constitute "structures". 204.52.215.107 14:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a railway track! It does not fall under the category of "tall". --Jibran1 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to talk about going underground, then you're going to have to do better than that. There are personal wells that are deeper than the tallest structure on earth. Try over 12 kilometers[10]. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Lacks Integrity, by Definition

A mostly-underwater oil platform is NOT '2001 feet high'. If we define height as the difference between a human-made structure's highest point and the natural ground, well then...do some recalculating.74.237.28.5 19:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Control tower

We should figure out this control tower problem. Currently, the listing is this:

Category Structure Country City Height (m) Height (ft)
Air traffic control tower Vancouver Harbour Control Tower  Canada Vancouver, British Columbia 146 481
Free standing control tower Suvarnabhumi Airport Control Tower  Thailand Bangkok, Thailand 132.2 433.7

However, both structures are "free standing," i.e. no guy wires, so that category doesn't make sense. The problem here is that Vancouver Harbour Control Tower is on top of a skyscraper. The whole structure isn't a control tower. So, while Vancouver Harbour Control Tower is the highest control tower in the world, you can't really say it's the tallest. JohnnyB 13:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest Wall?

Is anyone considering adding this? Is it Great Wall of China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.243.173.62 (talk) 04:36, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I'm absolutely sure it's not going to be the Great Wall. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burj Dubai is taller than CN tower

Hi. This stuff was on the news! The Burj Dubai is taller than the CN Tower. I'm not sure of the exact height, so could someone go check? This should also be in the main page. Can someone please go update this? I thought wikipedia was fast! Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 12:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Burj Dubai#Current height and timeline of events. --Mathew5000 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Major news sources are reporting that the Burj Dubai is now taller than the CN Tower, but the CTBUH won't change its ranking until the B.D. is actually completed. (See the link that Mathew5000 posted). Thus, listing the CN Tower as tallest is at least somewhat accurate, and possibly should not be changed yet. Kanook 16:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about the CTBUH stuff? I thought they only measured "buildings". But that ranking doesn't mean it is not taller. The image at the top of the article should definitely change. It doesn't have to be a habitable building to a be a free-standing structure, completed or not. It is taller, and that is what this list measures, so the image should change. Rai-me 19:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, I think that this recent image would be good to use. Rai-me 19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures&oldid=157755392"