Talk:List of tallest church buildings

Who made this list? Is it just a listing of random churches in order of height? It hardly includes any churches outside of Europe. There are at least two churches in New York City alone that ought to be on the list. -- Xerxes 21:00, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

• This is because there are in fact very few churches outside Europe which exceed 90m in height, which is at present the (entirely arbitrary) cutoff point for this list. It's not at all random and is relatively complete, although there are bound to be omissions. Only one church in NYC is this tall, as far as I can discover, and I have now included it and several other non-European churches on the list. Naturally, if you know of others then feel free to add them. -- Necrothesp 23:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Move

Some of these churches have domes and spires, not towers, so I've renamed the list. -- Necrothesp 09:56, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "names" of churches

Words like Dom are generic, not "names" of the churches in question. //up+land 23:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Yes they are. You'll notice that the name Dom, Cathedral etc is only used if the church is commonly referred to by the name of the city it's in, as many are. Yes, these churches usually have another name, but it's the common name that's been used on this table. For instance, Canterbury Cathedral is never referred to as Christ Church Cathedral, although that is its official name. Florence Cathedral is almost always referred to as "The Duomo" not Santa Maria del Fiore. If we started using the official dedications of these churches when they're rarely used in real life it would be a bit confusing. -- Necrothesp 17:28, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I saw that already, but my point was that there seems to be no reason to leave the name of the city out of the name of the church, except possibly an exaggerated anxiety of using it more than once on each line. //up+land 22:50, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it was originally just done to be clearer. I don't really think it's a problem. -- Necrothesp 10:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Ulmer Münster does only have the generic name Münster, there is no other name. --de:user:androl

Protestant

Regarding the entry: 101,0 m 331 ft Anglican Cathedral 1978 Liverpool England largest Protestant church in Europe and possibly the largest in the world. Please note that the Ulm Münster is a protestant church since 1531. --Pjacobi 11:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Yes. Ulm Münster is the tallest church in the world, but it is not the largest Protestant church in the world. This depends on the size of the whole building, not just the height of its tower. -- Necrothesp 19:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• One would want to be a little cautious about the denominational status of the Muenster in Ulm. The agreement was that the denomination of the Muenster would be determined by the majority denomination of the city of Ulm. For some years now, Ulm has a majority Catholic population. Technically, in law, the Muenster is Catholic.

It is protestant, see their German webpage which says "The protestant Muenster congregation in Ulm/Donau welcomes you on the Internet". The church is owned and used by Protestants, so is Protestant. Kusma (討論) 16:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ypres

I notice someone has just changed Ypres Cathedral to St. Maartenskerk. Now, when I was in Ypres a couple of years ago all the guidebooks certainly referred to it as a cathedral and it is referred to as a cathedral on many websites. Which is correct? -- Necrothesp 19:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed a cacthedral. Although Ypres has ceased to be a Catholic bishopring in 1802, the church still possess the title of cathedral

Thanks. -- Necrothesp 18:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed churches

The bottom cutoff point here is currently 90m. That's just arbitrary, but it's best to work down gradually and not suddenly add much shorter churches. I've therefore removed these:

|----- align="left" valign="top" bgcolor="#F8F8FF" | 74.6 m || approx. 250ft || St Mary's Cathedral || 2000 || Sydney || Australia |Burnt down in 1865. Current building began 1868.

|----- align="left" valign="top" bgcolor="#F8F8FF" | 40.0 m || 128 ft || St. Nectan's || C13th || Hartland, Devon || UK | Tallest parish church tower in the county of Devon.

-- Necrothesp 16:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

"Tallest"?

There can only be one tallest church. :) Just a minor thing, but maybe this should be renamed to "List of tall churches"? --Michiel Sikma 22:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"the 100 tallest churches" - why not?

Whereas all churches are tall - even those are very little tall. --Ikar.us 16:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Height of Church towers- historical or current

Hi all, compliments on this list. I would like to raise an issue here for consideration. The list is now ordered based on the historically tallest moment of a church; where collapsed, dstroyed and culled towers are ranked on their historical height. Although interesting it is almost impossible to find current order of tall churches (e.g. Tourist offices in Utrecht, (nl) are very proudly advocating the tallest church in the Netherlands (Dom 112), whereas in your list Groningen Martinitower is listed way above Utrecht at 127 meter which it only maintained for less than a 100 years between late 1400's and late 1500's before burning down. So historically Utrechts dom has been taller for about 450 years now. Ok bit lengthy text, but I would suggest to re-order the list on current height with the talles historical height in the comments column Arnoutf 13:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Where a church no longer stands to its full height it is in italics and the current height also appears in its correct place on the list. Personally, I find it interesting to know the tallest churches in history as well as currently. -- Necrothesp 16:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is worthwhile to know both current and historical. The question I wanted to raise is what should be the primary ordering key; historical (as the list it is ordered now) or current (which is mentioned in the last column). My personal preference would be the current height; as wikipedia is not a historic encyclopedia Arnoutf 19:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It covers historical subjects as much as contemporary subjects. -- Necrothesp 20:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course church towers have both contemporary and historical heights as they exist in both domains. I would not object to an order based on historical height if most people feel more comfortable with it that way (mentioning current height in another column). I would only like the discussion that both ways of presenting the information may be valid and that a deliberate decision should be made. This idea seems not to be suggested by other editors so far, but maybe of interest to others as well. Anyway, I will not make any such changes until consensus on this topic has been achieved Arnoutf 20:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an advertising encyclopedia either, where tourist offices can search for impressive numbers.

More seriously, I think that the earlier a high tallness was achieved, the more impressive is it. Therefore I'd prefer the current ordering.

--Ikar.us 21:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that is a good argument, we may want to stress that in the introduction.

Now I raised the historic vs contemproary anyway, then we should strive for consistency on historic heights. Am I correct, that the same Olaf's church in Tallinn is mentioned twice (once at its historic height near the top of the list, and once at about 123 meters, with the remark 'Once was much taller'). Same goes for Groningens Martini tower? I think whatever we do we should list a single church only once, otherwise the lists becomes unnecessarily long Arnoutf 21:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. There are not that many churches on this list that have been taller in the past. I don't think it increases the length very much at all. -- Necrothesp 00:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Still don't agree that churches may be mentioned twice, but I think we should leave it at that and 'agree to disagree' for now Arnoutf 18:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

But why the Lincoln Cathedral is listed with its historical tallness and the Berliner Dom not??? In my opinion it would be better to list the actual high and make a seperate table with the historically high churches.

The previous height of the Berliner Dom isn't listed for the simple reason that I couldn't find it anywhere! We can only put in the information we can find. If you or anyone else know it then feel free to list it. The problem with having two separate tables is that part of the interest is in comparison - if historical heights are removed to a separate table then they can't be compared with current heights, which removes part of the information in the article. -- Necrothesp 16:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The original height of St. Andreas in Braunschweig seems to be 122 m (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Andreas_(Braunschweig)). So the height should be raise and the name should be in italics, if I understand the politics corretely. --68.76.79.86 05:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That is more or less the idea, although the current height should also be mentioned under comments. Please make sure you use a reliable source for historical height though, as we can not check the historical height ourselves Arnoutf 08:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion in this matter is to add a new column "Present height [feet]" in third position. The two old columns are renamed to "Historic height [meter]" and "Historic height [feet]" respectively. Most rows will duplicate the figure in "Historic height [feet]" and "Present height [feet]". By using the sorting button of "Present height [feet]" a list of the tallest churches with their present height will be produced. This way two tables (historic and present heights respectively) are made in one.

A column "Present height [meter]" should not be added because sorting in meters give the same result as sorting in feet. The present height in meters should instead be noted in the "Comment" column, (but only where the "Historic height [feet]" and "Present height [feet]" differ). Adding too many columns make the table harder to read. In order for the table numeric sorting function to work the "m" and "ft" has to be removed from every row, example "161.5 m" must reduce to "161.5".

The italics style is no longer needed other than to further emphasize that the height has changed sometime in history. But the duplication of occurrencies of the same church in several rows should be removed because it is no longer necessary. If there is more than one historic height it has to be noted in "Comments". Najro (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like good idea for me, duplication of occurrencies of the same church in several rows is also confusing for me. But i will prefer to have one column "Historic height (meter/feet)" and second "Present height (meter/feet). --Jklamo (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion requires yet another column; the "Completion" column have to be split into "Completion of historic building" and "Completion of present building". Najro (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe my suggestion produces too many columns. I will think about this a bit more.

Meanwhile, I add a new (temporary?) column H. By using it's sorting button, a list of the current highest will be produced. This way also, the table becomes two in one. (Adding the three heights of Lincoln for testing). Najro (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fill the list

After visiting the http://www.skyscraperpage.com, the tallest is the la Sagrada Família with 170m in Barcelona, the 2nd is Mole Antonelliana (167,5m), 3rd is the Ulmer Munster, 4th is the Lincoln cath., 5th is the Notre Dame de Rouen, 6th is the Kolner Dome. I think, the webpage has more precise list, than we have now. --Mihalyia 16:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC) But that one is not a complet list too... --Mihalyia 16:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If you encounter reliable information about missing churches in our list, just insert them.

However, for Sagrada Família, we agree that we list it with the height that it currently has, not the intended height. The goal height of 172m is mentioned in the remarks column.

BTW, this list in different language wikipedias already has different items.

--Ikar.us 17:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I agree that Sagrada Família is correctly listed on this list (current instead of future height). The other example Mole Antonelliana is not a church so has no place on this page. Arnoutf 17:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Mole Antonelliana is a museum, not a church. The Sagrada Família is not yet that high. Lincoln no longer stands to its original height. Cologne is taller than Rouen. This list is perfectly accurate. See Emporis. -- Necrothesp 17:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. --Mihalyia 15:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

metres/feet

which heights are correct, in metres or feet? They are not always matching:

• 86.2 m are 282.8 ft -> 283 ft
• 85.9 m are 281.8 ft -> 282 ft

the fact that there are mostly jumps of 0.3m makes me think the feet are correct shouldn't we base this list on metres and convert them to feet?

• 1 ft is 0.3048 m
• 1 m is 3.2808399 ft

--androl 13:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably it depends on where each individual number comes from. --Ikar.us 20:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Some sources gave heights in metres, others in feet, and they don't always match that well. -- Necrothesp 00:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Cathedral of Hope in Pittsburg belongs between St. Francis DeSales Ch. in St. Louis (300 ft) and Sint-Jacobuskerk in The Hauge (299 ft).

Stadtpfarrkirche St. Stephen in Branan should indicate a height of 285 ft. [not 325 ft.] if it is 87 m. in height.

Orthodox Cathedral in Timisora should indicate a height of 274 ft. [not 315 ft.] if it is 83.7 m. in height.

Musicwriter (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Temple Building

I am not sure this should be included. Yes it is a church-building but not a church in the strict sense of the word. Therefore I think we should not include this building. It is interesting enough to add the reference as a footnote. I leave it up for now, but if nobody complains I will take it out in a week or so and add a line referring to it in the introduction). Arnoutf 16:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've deleted this once already. It is not the church that has height, so it does not belong here. -- Necrothesp 18:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

References to height

Recently the issue concerning references to height (especially historic and therefore non controlable), height has been raised. I tend to agree with this issue. I would suggest the following idea:

• A reference is needed if the tower is no longer at its tallest height.

• A reference is not needed if the tower still stands to its tallest height, because the claim can be checked if so required by measuring the tower
• A reference is not needed if the article about the church in question lists the historical tallest height in an acceptably referenced way (note that this is also not the case for Beauvais; and there is not even an article about Old St Pauls'). Arnoutf 14:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

-

I fully endorse this idea. --Opie 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

List restoration

Please restore the list!

Done!.

You can revert to older versions by registering as a user. Then you can access the history list and restore previous versions.

Please sign remarks on talk pages using four tildes: ~~~~ also if you are editing with an anonymous IP adress name. Thanks Arnoutf 21:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cathédrale Saint-Pierre de Beauvais

I removed this church from the list (again), because it is obviously a mistaken conversion error from feet to metres. The noticable height is not the tower, which is about the same hight as the main structure itself, but the vaulting in the interior (157 ft). If the tower is about 157 metres high, than you should definately notice it on the many pictures taken from the cathedral! ...Dryke 19:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I correct myself, I found a reference to the height of the tower of 151 metres at [[1]] that collapsed in the 18th century. ...Dryke 20:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work, thanks a lot. Arnoutf 20:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
PS please remember to sign talk page edits using the four tildes ~~~~

I noticed i forgot to sign it twice...Dryke 21:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you'll see that the entry is in italics, which means that the church no longer stands to the listed height. -- Necrothesp 12:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Belltowers

Excuse me, does this list includes belltowers (when separate to church)? Because the tallest in Itlay is Cremona's but it's not in the list. Cheers --Sailko 12:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know it does; of course only if it is a church belltower, so please add it at the appropriate positions. Arnoutf 12:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should add separate campanile. After all, they don't actually contribute to the height of the church building, which is what this page is all about. -- Necrothesp 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

St. Petri, Hamburg

Different facts about tower height on the list and on the actual homepage of the church linked to. Which one is correct?

Note that the spire height 132 and the heighest accesible rampart 123 seem to be confused between the articles. Arnoutf (talk) 09:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Tallest Churches in the World

An imposing tall church in the United States is St. Anthony's in Toledo, Ohio. It is 250 feet in height and was dedicated July 15, 1894 by the Bishop of Cleveland, Ignatius Horstmann. The diocese of Toledo was not established until 1910.

St. Anthony's Church is still standing despite being closed by the bishop of Toledo on January 1, 2006. Location is the corner of Nebraska and Junction Avenues.

Ref. History of St. Anthony's Parish, Toledo, Ohio, Anno Domini 1957, F.S. Legowski, 1957 Musicwriter (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not completely sure of your point, if you think it should be added, do so. Note however it would rank 3rd from the bottom in the current list, as the main sorting option is in metres (about 3 foot to a metre), so this church would be about 80 metres (please do the calculations). Arnoutf (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

In Legowski's book mentioned above, it implies that the 1894 church did not have a cross on the tower until 1926, when a copper cross, made by F. Christen & Sons, a local architectural firm, 15 feet high, was installed. Thus the church's height was increased to 265 feet. Musicwriter (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Tall churches in The U. S. A.

Since my last comment I have browsed the net and read about a church in St. Louis, Missouri on Gravois Ave. with a height of 104.4 m (300 feet). The name of the Church is St. Francis DeSales. However, I am skeptical about quoting web pages as being authentic and accurate. I feel it's best to refer to a published book or refer to an official diocesan website before posting on wikipedia.com Musicwriter (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorting

Oops, I made a little non-improvement of the column "Completion" to make it sort better. But then I thought of that "12th Century" means the years 1100-1199, not 1200-1299, so my modification made it worse than it was before. If "12th Century" is replaced by "1100s" it will work as I intended. But "1100s" must not be mistaken for the years 1100-1109, it should be interpreted as the years 1100-1199. Najro (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well now I see that it was rather bad before my change too, so I no longer think I made it worse. Both mine and the preceeding version sorts unsatisfactory. Najro (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"12th Century" equals "11XXs"? No, with hidden sort key "{ {sms|1150}} [ [12th Century]]" sorts as "1150". Every single row have to be extended to for example "{ {sms|1890}} [ [1890]]" instead of only "[ [1890]]". sms means sort mode string. Najro (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How low can we go?

Should we maybe put a minimum height requirement for inclusion on this list? Otherwise people would just list all churches in the world. After checking the list for Belgium [2] and The Netherlands [3] there are already at least 40 churches higher than 80 meter (262 feet) in the low countries alone, we can't possibly start listing every church over 70m, can we? --Lamadude (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Mininum height is already set up (74,5 m). Anyway still lower part of the table is incomplete and current 49 kb article size (WP:SIZE) is still growing. So rise limit to 80 m for example sounds like a good idea to me. --Jklamo (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

chuch missing

lambertikirche münster ist missing: height 99m