Talk:List of tallest towers in the world/Archive 1

Archive 1

request

can someone put Baghdad Tower in the list please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.246.58 (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There is in Poland a tower 141 meters tall. It's placed in Licheń Stary. Can somebody put it in the list? You can get more informations from www.lichen.pl it consists a building of Basilika in Licheń, the largest churs in Poland, 8th in Europe and 12 in the world.

Ostankino now 577 meters

During the renovation in 2003, the tower has got a new antenna which makes the tower taller for 40 meters now. In fact, since 2003, Ostankino tower in Moscow is the world's tallest tower again, with a total height of 577 meters. Yakutsk TV tower is 241 meters. Constructed in 1982.

Duplication?

The Eiffel Tower and CN Tower are listed under 'Famous Towers' (under the first table) even though they are already on the table above. (The Leaning Tower of Piza would otherwise not be anywhere on the page, and it certainly is a famous tower.) It seems to me that this information could be organized better. If nothing else, the Leaning Tower could be added to the 'Tall buildings called "towers"...' table; the 'Famous Towers' list looks like a remnant of an older organization. This seems to be an active page, so please enlighten me. Wyvern 19:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Order also smaller towers by height

If data of tower height are available, use them ALWAYS to order them!—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Plan for tallest TV Tower in China!

According to http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/14/content_391330.htm

the tallest TV tower is planned in China!

Fantastic List!

The list is, I must say very good. It makes links to many interesting tower constructions of all kind throughout the world! I saw never such a detailed list! But please extend the table as follow:

First Column: Name of tower Second Column: Town where tower is Third Column: Country where tower is Fourth Column: Year of Built Fifth Column: Use (Transmission of LW, MW, SW, UHF/VHF; Water Tower; observation tower; etc.)

Skyguy

• why are there towers on the list that are not built yet ? this list is daft in the extreme PalX 19:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Separate list for chimneys?

Should there a separate list for large chimneys be made?

I agree. Currently, no chimney have floor space inside it; they are simply hollow, and dedicated to smoke escaping.

You have a separate list of world's tallest structures (in general), in which skyscrapers, chimneys, TV towers, mastiles, pylons, etc, appear mixed. This is the "absolute" height list.

I think this list should be dedicated only to "lollipop shaped" TV towers, full made of concrete, metal or both. Even a new list should be started to hold towers made only or mainly with lattice steel (unguyed), since they are clearly different in structure than "lollipop" ones. Ricardo Cancho Niemietz - Spain (rcancho@tiscali.es)--213.96.157.218 09:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I thinkn that chimneys should not be in. I also think that if you want to limit to "lollipop shaped" TV towers, full made of concrete, metal or both; you have to make a list of "lollipop shaped" TV towers, full made of concrete, metal or both. Arnoutf 00:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As there is no objection I will throw out chimneys from this list soon. If anyone is interested in a list of chimneys please copy them while they are still up. Arnoutf 18:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Further columns

Table contains now columns (town and remarks)

Incomplete list

Is adding the Barad Dur out of the question? It might be fictional, but only slightly moreso than "Transmitter Golm". And even a separate table surveying fictional towers wouldn't be entirely inappropriate, in that it would hint at the motives that drive people to construct ever taller skyscrapers. Martin Selig is a nazgul, after all.

Please only towers that really exist or did exist some time ago like Transmitter Golm. If we add fantasy towers from fantasy worlds with a name from a fantasy language like Barad-dûr we would have to add the beanstalk from Jack and the beanstalk as well. - Alureiter 07:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

In the list only towers should be mentioned, which exist or which existed. Please do not add guyed masts (except of partially guyed stractures, as Gerbrandy Tower). Fictional or planned towers should not be added to the list.

But add ALL existing free standing towers to the list. Each tower, which existed or exists, is welcome!

Minimum heigt of towers

Something to think about: What do we consider the minimum height for a tower, as the smallest listed tower now measures 22.7 meter, which is about equal to a seven story building. If we add all those we could add literally many thousands of buildings from almost every town in the world which would reduce readability and any chance of useful overview of the page, as any of us can add many towers, allowing such short structures would introduce a very large bias (people wanting to promote their region may easily put in many towers, e.g. in a relatively small town as Utrecht (pop 300.000) alone I could list about 20 without effort, also the current list of short towers is for example almost exclusively about Germany). Arnoutf 19:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

remove other towers table

To clean up this article I would remove the 'other towers' table, because I can't see very much point in it, and it is VERY long, what does everyone else think??? --Sclaydonuk 16:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The list is OK! It allows to find many interesting tower construction throughout the world and it is ordered by height! It is one of the best list of towers I have ever seen!

DO NOT REMOVE IT!

What to do about bell-towers

This list defines towers a bit narrowly, considering the debate on US skyscrapers, and the suggestion to move chimneys. To furhter confuse this issue I would like to add that several bell towers (e.g Utrecht Dom-tower - 112 meter; built somewhere arount 1500; should look it up) are tall enough to be listed in the tower list (actually looking for tall bell-towers ws how I arrived here). There are probably many more. So perhaps the phrase tower is not the most happily chosen name for the exact category of high-rise structures that is meant on this page. Sorry not to have a suggestion for improvement at the moment, but something for discussion? arnoutf 12 january 2006

Of course, it is sometimes not easy to define, if a construction is a tower or not. So are the Henninger Turm and the Telecommunication Tower Feldberg/Taunus more likely high-rise buildings than towers. However put famous or extraordinary bell-towers here in the list and others in the article bell tower. There are also free-standing towers additionally guyed for better standing. So the two lattice towers of RKS Liblice 1 are free-standing, but are additionally guyed (partial guyed towers as Gerbrandy Tower in contrast consist of two parts: a free-standing tower as basement and a guyed mast on the top)

In case of doubt, put a construction in the list for both categories as is done with partially guyed towers.

CLEANUP

The label cleanup on top of this list is not for nothing. Howver, a lot of people keep adding ever shorter towers. There is no way we can ever give even a sketchy view of all short towers. We should limit the height! Please consider the completely reasonlabe quest for cleanup before increasing the amount of trivial facts in this list. Arnoutf 22:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

While height is an important factor, there are many short towers more notable than thousands of random skyscrapers. —BenFrantzDale 22:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

With that I agree, important short towers (as short as they may be) could be added. However the importance of a short tower does not seem to play any role in adding them to the list. To follow up on your remark, we can consider renaming the towers shorter then 100 meter to 'remarkable towers' shorter then 100 meters. Of course we have to agree on why a tower can be considered remarkable (and note that in the list). If we agree on that we can prune out 'unremarkable' short towers. I think reasons for inclusion of a short tower may be 'historical importance', 'mention in great works of arts (e.g. the short Barbara tower from Vermeer's view on Delft, or a tower mentioned in an important work of literature), 'Architectural masterpiece'. Do you think this is a way to develop the short tower section? Arnoutf 18:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What about shorter towers built for unique porpose or those which are well-known broadcasting stations? I think the criteria of importance cannot be determined so easy! A better idea would be marking of towers of special importance by writting the name in bold letters.

My proposal for limiting adding shorter towers is based on the noise that it adds on the page. There are now 124 towers in the smaller than 100 meter list 65! of which are in Germany. If active editors from other countries determine to add a similar amount of towers from their own countries, this list will number in the 100's, probably in the 1000's of towers. This would make the list unreadable and therefore useless. If such editors do not appear the list will be unacceptably biased to an arbitrary country (at this moment the list implies that more than half of the towers less than 100 meter worthy of mention are in Germany). That would make the list equally useless. Bolding the important towers will not help in this as they will get lost in the long, long list.

Therefore we have to find a way to limit this category. My suggestion to add only important towers is just one suggestion to do so. As you can see I just ask for criteria for importancy, and I agree it will not be easy to arrive at such criteria. By the way, I guess most really well-konwn broadcast towers are taller than 100m, and I have no problem with this category as that is much more limited. Arnoutf 17:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wind turbines

These have been overlooked and need to be added. Sub-200m.Sleigh 23:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not in favour of adding wind turbines. As I argue to limit the list (see above under cleanup). As stated above it is my opinion we shoud narrow rather than broaden the definition of tower. Arnoutf 13:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup and verification tag

These tags were removed on March 24th. I put them back as there was no discussion on the reason to remove the tags. In my opinion the problem signalled by the tags - long article; no clear rationale in the list; lack of sources (lathough less serious for such a list), have not been seriously addressed, so no reason to remove the tags. If you disagree with me and think the tags should be removed, please list your arguments why these tags no longer apply in this topic (preferably before, but certainly) when you remove the tags. Thanks Arnoutf 13:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetic order

Let the page and order all towers alphabetically and not by height

Does NOT sound like a good idea. I think height is a more interesting cue than alphabeth. Arnoutf 20:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (ps please sign messages using the four ~'s)

Suggestion

How about a list of the progressive tallest buildings in the world, over time? For example I beleive the Dom in Cologne was the tallest building in the world, but from when to when?

Merging with List of masts

Why not to merge this list with the list of masts? Masts are often also called "tower" and are used for the same purpose (transmissions, meteorological measurements) as towers!

Duh: They're TV-Radio antenna towers

These towers have only one reason for being built -- to carry broadcast signals. Cities that build them don't have nearby mountains. Toronto and Moscow have them, Los Angeles doesn't.

Some are some are not; I have no idea why this article lumps everything together, and arbitrarily excludes skyscrapers, but no editor is willing to rigorously clean it up or even discuss before adding more stuff. Arnoutf 18:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (PS moved this topic down to reflect chronology of remarks)

Clean up tag

31st July the clean up tag was removed by User:Bhludzin with the short edit summary 'cleaned up article'. This cleanup action however constituted mainly of replacing the old definition with a new (and imho even more arbitrary) definition; and some ordering of external links (which is a good thing). However both these actions do not address the arbritary lenght of towers categories, the structure of the article and the lay-out of the tables, the addition criteria for new towers (which appear not their). Therefore I disagree that the actions taken took care of the required clean-up. If you take action to clean up, that is very welcome but please make sure there is agreement/consensus on this talk page that the cleanup has been carried out sufficiently complete before removing the tag. Thanks Arnoutf 08:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree, this is amongst the least cleaned-up pages that I've ever seen on Wikipedia. -- H005 11:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The recent addition of 27!! chimneys over 300 meters prove this point. The quality of this article is deteriorating rather than improving, with every edit! If no realand fair ideas for cleanup occur very, very soon I think the only way out is to nominate the article for deletion! Arnoutf 20:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Renumbering

I notices the Kennecott smokestack was in the list twice. I found some references and removed the one that was wrong. But then I was left with manually renumbering the list (which I did up to 50). This is not only a lot of work, but not very helpful to anyone who looks at differences. Is there a better way to do this? LouScheffer 16:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

ULTIMATUM - Clean up or be nominated for deletion!!!!

This article is a mess and the recent addition of see also tallest structure of any country in the world makes it much, much worse. Unless there is a response and clear action to reduce this list WITHIN ONE WEEK (i.e. before tuesday 17 October) I will nominate this article for deletion, as by now I think starting over with a clean slate is the only way for this article to work. Arnoutf 17:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Towers in range 250 and 280 metres missing!!!

Please reconstruct entries between 250 and 280 metres!

Inclusion of very short towers

I noticed ever shorter towers appear on the list (down to 13 meters which is about a three or four level building).I think at least for short towers (<50 meters) there should be a reasonalbe claim to fame (e.g. a historical lookout tower is fine, but a modern radiomast of 20 meters without any importance should not). Without disagreement I will mark and remove unremarkable very short structure soon Arnoutf 00:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

WBIR tower

Hello - you need to add the (now unused) WBIR-TV tower in Blaine, TN, near Knoxville to this list at 1750 feet. It is still standing, though no longer in use. http://www.metropulse.com/dir_zine/dir_2001/1109/t_secret.html—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.121.98 (talk • contribs)

The MetroPulse article can now be found at http://www.tntrivia.com/worlds_tallest_structure.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.151.118.129 (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a tower but a mast, hence should not be included Arnoutf 08:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of tower articles

Who for hell deleted so many articles of certain towers. I know many of them and they did not contain nonsense. Can someone restore them?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.49.248.13 (talk • contribs)

You may have followed the article for deletion nominations, a whole list of towers was nominated and apparently the deletion committee agreed with this, that although there may not have been nonsense in the article the towers were not noticable (per Wiki policy) to warrant a full article. So I am pretty sure it was Wiki administration that after due consideration delete these articles. In other words. Do not restore these. Arnoutf 14:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Chimneys and other non-towers

As there have been no objections on excluding chimneys after a remark on July 18th, and my own proposal to remove chimneys and other non-towers from the list on november 20th I deleted them on december 24th. I also removed the rank numbering as this has repeatedly been shown to be unmaintainable (inclusion of numbers like 12a when an editor inserted a highly ranked tower in the list). They were restored today without any discussion by anonymous User:89.49.80.212. I have reverted these edits; and will do so as long as the discussion has not reached a different concensus. Arnoutf 15:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody bother to read the introduction of the article which explicitly mentions that chimney are not considered towers and are therefore not to be added. I removed a whole load of them Arnoutf 15:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

the list is daft as towers are in it which don't even exist. One cannot reasonably use this list at all. The article needs to be rewritten or else deleted PalX 19:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you, (even nominated it for deletion once). However, I appear to be one of the few editors who is interested in the quality of this list at all, and have more or less given up on paying much attention to it as I consider it a waste of time. Arnoutf 19:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Too long

This article is 53 kilobytes long, which is way too much. It is obvious that the list is not complete because of the hundreds of short towers that could be added. I will be removing all towers under 100 meters to shorten the article, and many of them are just redlinks. Later, I may even remove the 100-150 meter range. Don't just revert, please add objections here. Reywas92^Talk 18:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the removal; the article is indeed too long and there are uncountable <100 meter towers in the worlds anyway. Arnoutf 18:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel something needs to be done about this now, the towers under 50 and between 50 and 100 are still there. I'm going to remove them, because people can add whatever they want and nobody cares, and as they could are usually red links, the structure might not even exist. As Reywas92 said, maybe even the 100-150 m range needs to be removed. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dividing Radio & Television Towers

I think Radio and Television transmission Towers should be on a seperate list. It just seems odd to list transmission structures and decorative buildings together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.39.227 (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding length of article and not yet built towers

This article should undergo some significant shortening soon. I think I may start under-construction, approved and proposed lists but they cannot be added until the list is shorter, because they can't be too far down. It's a shame to delete so many of the towers that people have made an effort to put in this list, but it has to be done. timsdad 09:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree that this list is too long, but rather than delete existing information, I see no problem with splitting some sections out to their own individual articles. 142.68.84.18 (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, but don't you think an article called something like 'List of towers from 50-100 metres' is a bit strange? timsdad 08:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Not particularly, especially if it's made obvious that it belongs to a series of other related articles. There is however, no reason why the articles would have to be split out at the exact numeric values as the existing sections (i.e. find a common mid-range and chop it in two... or even three). 142.68.84.18 (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Diagram

I am currently working on a height diagram consisting of the current 5 tallest structures to add to this article. Does anyone think that I should not include the Menara Kuala Lumpur and instead add the Guangzhou TV & Sightseeing Tower (which is under construction) in red? timsdad 08:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to upload the diagram without the under construction tower, if anyone would like the Guangzhou Tower to be added, just let me know. I think it would be better to wait until the article has information about some of the under-construction, approved and proposed towers. timsdad 08:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oriental Pearl Tower

The different measures of height for Oriental Pearl Tower do not fit in the same positions in their respective lists - one or more must be wrong. 131.111.184.95 (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)