This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Someone should put the long list of masts in the table in a different article. Right now, it's reduced the presentation and accuracy of the article as many countries have similar masts to ones listed in the table but due to lack of research and published specifications from the respective governments/owners, they may've not been properly represented in such list. Hence, it would appear to some readers that this list may be definitive when it is not. As a reference article, it should remain accurate, impartial and representative of current facts. If facts are incomplete, it shouldn't be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.71.254 (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fonzy, this should really be merged with World's tallest structures. This is quite a complex issue and has already been extensively discussed. --Robert Merkel 23:03 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)
hmmm, i tkae structures as anything built by man radio masts etc but thsi list WILL get very long which is why i put it on its owbn page.
I am nto dulicating the article i am making alist of tall structures nd yes i am aware of height diff defs.
Emley Moor radio mast in the UK is a 330m tall freestanding structure, and I think that makes it the largest self-supporting structure in Britain. I notice it's not on this list. If this list isn't complete, perhaps it shouldn't be numbered like it is? -Nommo
Why was this list changed from an ordered list to and unordered list? In otherwords there use to be numbers next to each entry now there are just diamond shapes. I thought it looked better with the numbers. -- Popsracer 00:59 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
This page should be updated using [page] which although it is in German at least uses a consistent definition. This list at the top goes be structural top and by the bottom is using antenna heights. Rmhermen 13:40, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC) Our page at List of skyscrapers is a good source too. The German one is very incomplete below 300m. I may get around to this myself. Rmhermen 13:45, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
This list is very long, so I think that the list should be kept for buildings 450m+, because otherwise it is too long. ~ {{{1}}} Ghelæ {{{2}}}talkcontribs 18:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be kept down to 350 metres, because otherwise the list would only contain four structures in Europe and no existing structure in the European Union!
Idea: make two lists. One with structures of any kind taller than 350 metres, which may get long and a second one with buildings and free-standing towers taller than 350 metres.
The long list is therefore sensitive, because it allows many interesting rankings. I do not believe, that it will grow much, although there may be surely some supertall guyed radio towers in Russia and China no data available. User:Zonk43
Is there a reason why three of the entries have a red tint to them? Lovok 11:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There may be still more structures taller than 350 metres under construction. According to the FCC-database [2], there are many radio masts in the USA planned with pinnacle heights greater than 350 metres. If you know one, that is under construction, then add it to the list under Structures taller than 350 metres under construction
Find out the height of high-power transmitters used for
If they are taller than 350 metres add them to the list!
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).[reply]
Actually, all structures taller than 555m are guyed masts or drilling platforms both in the United states. If you perceive "tallest" at such a strict level, only those are relevant. 82.212.63.18 09:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
201 kilobytes long is rediculous. I'm cutting it down to only those over 350 meters. Reywas92Talk 20:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This merge will help to keep Wikipedia simpler.--Jorfer 02:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I began the merge for list of masts due to lack of opposition and the obvious overlapping between them.--Jorfer 15:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I merged List of tallest structures in the world by type of use due to lack of opposition.--Jorfer 14:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my support to merge list of towers as most of the towers are outside of the height range of this article.--Jorfer 21:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following was merged from the List of Masts talk page:
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)[reply]
I agree that article should be merged into this one so long as each entry is examined first to see that it meets the criteria of this article. Hmains 05:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)
Someone should put the long list of masts in the table in a different article. Right now, it's reduced the presentation and accuracy of the article as many countries have similar masts to ones listed in the table but due to lack of research and published specifications from the respective governments/owners, they may've not been properly represented in such list. Hence, it would appear to some readers that this list may be definitive when it is not. As a reference article, it should remain accurate, impartial and representative of current facts. If facts are incomplete, it shouldn't be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.71.254 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having difficulty tracking down any heights, but there is a cluster of towers in Shoreview, Minnesota that are very tall. One that collapsed while under construction in 1971 was 1285 feet tall, according to [3], and one currently in existence is said to be 1400 feet tall, though I'm not sure how precise that height is. —User:Mulad (talk) 01:29, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
Attransmission tower there is an (incomplete) liste of mast collapse catastrophes. Please make this list complete!
Masts withe the comment (identity unclear) cannot be found by the help of http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistrationSearch.jsp . Perhaps they are identic with other masts in the table! Check these masts!
A lot of these seem to be poorly named. Pinnacle Towers Tower Mooringsport, from what I can tell from google, should probably be [[Pinnacle Towers tower (Mooringsport)]], as "Pinnacle Towers Tower Mooringsport" gets no hits, and "Pinnacle Towers Tower" doesn't seem to be a proper name either, just a descriptor for a tower owned by "Pinnacle Towers". ~~~~
I am removing articles on planned towers because wikipedia has a policy that wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dave the Red (talk) 05:51, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
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!
The list is, I must say very fantastic! I saw never such a detailed list! But please extend the table as follow:
First Column: Name of mast Second Column: Town where mast is Third Column: Country where mast is Fourth Column: Year of Built Fifth Column: Use (longwave, mediumwave, UHF/VHF, meteorological/scientific experiments)
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)
The policy discussion seems to be leaning heavily towards merging many of the mast articles into the existing table. Several proposed formats for the merged table are being discussed at List of masts/Sample tables. Comments and proposals are encouraged. What do people use these tables for? What are we missing? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 19:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Table contains now columns (town and remarks)
Try to find out more about the Russian 460 metre radio mast
These have been overlooked and need to be added. Sub-200m. Sleigh 23:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's a nonsense to have a section titled "Masts shorter than 200 meters". That could include every mast ever built. This article desperately needs an overall inclusion criteria. I suggest 300 meters. -- I@n ≡ talk 17:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
would it be ok if i made the cutoff for 200 meters?
Could you please put the planned tower list back on? Put it on only if it has a license to build approved from the FCC or something of that nature. Thank you!
Is it impossible to save the complete list in a sensitive way? Why not to move it into Wikisource? Would be a good idea!
There are 14,000 broadcast stations just in the United States, and a good number of them have tall towers. That doesn't make the towers in themselves notable ot encyclopedic. Having a list of them is at least arguable (although you can find them just as easily in ASRS which is not only an official source but in the public domain). As someone who has both seen and written about a lot of broadcast facilities, I don't see the point of dumping all this data into WP without a great deal more editorial effort, even if Wiki is not paper. (And I would note that many of the stubs about U.S. towers were clearly created by someone who had no knowledge of them beyond what is shown in ASRS—might as well just name the articles "Antenna structure number 1023456" and so on—and did not write them in American English.) I believe these articles are forever destined to be of very low average quality. (Speaking only of the U.S. towers as I have no direct knowledge to evaluate the articles about other countries' towers.) 121a0012 08:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
Tagged this article for cleanup because of this problem. TRosenbaum 14:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
There may be still masts taller than 300 metres used for LORAN-C, CHAYKA and RSDN-20. Fnd out the height of these towers!
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)[reply]
Info from deleted articels is brought here if appropraite. Rich Farmbrough, 11:33 9 January 2007 (GMT).
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)[reply]
Obviously yes, although, there may exist some other guyed masts in former Soviet Union or China, which are taller. It would be good to find out the height of as much towers and masts in former Soviet Union as possible.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Would it not be possible to undelete the deleted mast articles and put them in a chapter to the community where the mast stands? Especially for the masts in North America this would be a great idea!
The KCPT tower is not guyed. It is a 4 sided free standing structure.
KCPT Tower is 317.6 metres tall. The 372 metres tall tower at Kansas City, Missouri with FCC-Entry http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=617913 at 39°4'58"N 94°28'50"W is a guyed mast. See on http://www.wikimapia.org/5165414/Kansas_City_Public_Broadcasting_Tower .
Again a reason why coordinates should be added!
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.
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)[reply]
But not for all structures exist an article any more!
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)[reply]
This page is extremely long. The addition of images will make it even longer and slower to load. There should only be one image, and it should be of the tallest man-made structure in history. The inclusion of a gallery is not what this page is about. It is a list of the structures, and not a gallery of them. Also, if people want a picture of a specific structure, they can select the link to the article and find some pictures. --Leitmanp 21:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Maldek has been insisting that the first section that lists structures should be renamed from "Structures (past or present) taller than 600 m (1,969 ft)" to "Structures (past or present) between 600 and 650 m (1,968.503 ft and 2,132.545 ft)." The reasoning according to Maldek is that we need to maintain consistency among all the sections and that the Burj Dubai will soon be taller than 650 m and it should be put in its own section. Jklamo and I have reverted these changes. I cannot speak for Jklamo, but I think there is no reason to create a new section if only one structure will be in it. I would rather keep one section for structures greater than 600 m until there are enough structures greater than 650 m to create a new section. I would like to know what other editors think about this subject. I would rather create consensus on the talk page than continuing an edit war. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes!!! Merge it! --70.146.127.147 (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maldek, let me try and explain this in clear language. I accept your point that if we are to split the page up into 50m categories, then logically Burj Dubai would, when it qualifies, be put into the next 650-700m category. Indeed, this 50m policy was arrived at by consensus. However, another policy that has been arrived at by consensus is that there needs to be sufficient entries in any new category before it merits being created. Furthermore, the "sufficient entries" policy overrides the "50m" policy, again by consensus. Therefore, logically, we keep the existing 50m categories except where there are insufficient entries to merit creating the next highest category, in which case the topmost category just contains all entries above a certain level. Hopefully this should now be clear.Chillysnow (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should merge it because it is the same list. --65.2.36.252 (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
These lists are obvious redundant since Burj Khalifa is on every single list. All of these lists need reconsideration. --THEFOUNDERSINTENT PRAISE 16:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why don't all of the fields in the tables sort correctly? Ardric47 (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)stargate[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
89.245.157.175 (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]