Talk:List of tallest church buildings

The tallest church is sagrada familia in barcelona (over 170 meters tall) please update the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.167.254.62 (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Untitled

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)

How can Salisbury be "tallest 14th-century structure in the world." when a few rows above it, Lübeck (1350) is taller? 2.88.99.173 (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2014 (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)

The title of the article is "Tallest Church Buildings". The Chicago Temple Building fits that criteria. If you don't include it, you must change the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:4001:7B89:2AC2:DDFF:FE6A:20FB (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2016 (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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.28.84.20 (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

National detail

Why separately identify England and Scotland? They are both parts of the UK and no other church is listed with a "nationality" below nation-state (this is a difficult definition since both England and Scotland are often referred to as "nations", however they do not have separate international representation). Some countries' second tier units have greater powers than the Scottish Assembly and England has no separate assembly. Folks at 137 (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

When speaking of medieval architecture it is generally standard practice to single England out (think of all those books titled "Cathedrals of England" or "Abbeys of England and Wales"). Antienne (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The answer is simple: England and Scotland are identified as separate countries, because they are officially defined as separate countries. This should not to be confused with sovereign nations. See several reference below, including the horse's mouth.

Addressing the other WP:POV points made: Some folks may not be aware, but England and Scotland have separate international representation in some domains. I am not claiming this is universal by any means, but it is certainly not "no representation" as claimed by some folks above. One can verify their standing as separate countries directly from the horse's mouth. Obviously sovereign states cannot contain sovereign states by definition, but there is precedence elsewhere for countries within countries. Current editions of several respected Manuals of Style even discourage referring to the United Kingdom as a country. The standard practice described by User:Antienne is of course the reality prior to their mutual Acts of Union 1707. Furthermore in this context, the State Religion in England is the Church of England, whereas the national religion in Scotland is the Church of Scotland/ I am not suggesting those denominations are nationalities. I am merely observing the official use of State and Nation for each country in a religious context. My first answer and this latter date are not my opinion, but are Wikipedia policies. The earliest folks contributing to this discussion may wish to familiarize themselves with the terminology here, the timeline shown here, or this, and even this.
With thanks from ChrisJBenson (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC), Wales.

Notes and References

Highest churches

What about highest churches, such as the church that occupies the top floor of Central Plaza in Wan Chai North, Hong Kong? 05:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What about them? As you said, that would be the highest church rather than the tallest church, as the entire function of the building is not the church. If included in this list, these churches would have to be in a separate section. However, I don't feel they belong here. --timsdad ^(talk) 10:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Milan Cathedral

It seems that the Milan Cathedral is listed twice, at 109 (maybe the madonnina on top is included?) and at 106.5 m. Now which is the right one? --151.68.99.82 (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing Churches from Poland

Today I added one church from Poland to the list (Collegiate church of St. Mary Magdalene in Poznan, completed in 1262, already non-existant - destroyed during the fire in 1777 and finally remnants / walls were demolished in 1802). But several other churches from Poland are still missing - including one 101 metres high and the rest of them are below 100 metres (but more than 70 metres) high. Here is the list of the highest Polish churches (over 70 metres high) from Polish wikipedia:

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_najwy%C5%BCszych_ko%C5%9Bcio%C5%82%C3%B3w_w_Polsce

And here an automatic translation of the same page:

http://translate.google.pl/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&u=http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_najwy%25C5%25BCszych_ko%25C5%259Bcio%25C5%2582%25C3%25B3w_w_Polsce&ei=TyKLSv-2OIXMmgPFhIh6&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dnajwy%25C5%25BCsze%2Bko%25C5%259Bcio%25C5%2582y%2Bw%2Bpolsce%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rlz%3D1W1ASUS_pl

I'll try to add some of them later, but if someone else has some spare time, they could add some of them - would be appreciated.

Cheers!

Peter558 (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Provincial Victorian churches

Hi, I know that at least Sacred Heart Cathedral in Bendigo, Victoria has a spire height of roughly 90 metres, so should be included in this list. Also might be worth checking out St Mary of the Angels Basilica in Geelong, Victoria, not so sure about it's height, it is positioned on elevated terrain and is very imposing because of that, but it sure looks tall! 114.75.9.107 (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Martini Tower

It is a myth that the Groningen Martini Tower was once 127 m high, images of the original spire clearly show that the hight cannot have exceeded the current hight much. The "real" original hight is estimated at about 102 m. Also, the tower wasn't finished in 1482. Only in 1548 the weather vane was placed at the top. See Frans Westra, Martinitoren (Groningen, 2009), p. 29 Peppyn (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A confusing list

So confusing it requires a complex explanation in the lede section about historical heights and sorting that doesn't exist. Couple that with the same building appearing multiple times without explanation (eg: Grote of Sint-Jacobskerk (The Hague) and Grote Kerk, The Hague lead to the same article), some missing (Saint Boniface's in Leeuwarden would qualify for this list), and heights at variance with other articles (though this is sometimes only 0.1 m so could be due to rounding). Can I suggest a little cleanup is needed. Astronaut (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops, it seems "Grote of Sint-Jacobskerk (The Hague)" and "Grote Kerk, The Hague" are indeed different buildings. Looking at nl:Grote of Sint-Jacobskerk (Den Haag) and nl:Sint-Jacobus de Meerderekerk (Den Haag) they are different. It is the use here of the redirect on en.wikipedia which is incorrect, and should perhaps use Sint-Jacobuskerk (Den Haag) instead. That doesn't exist as an article but is mentioned in the Template:Tallest buildings in the Netherlands. ... I have just gone and made that edit. Astronaut (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Diagram

I actually came here first to try to replace the chart. It was made in 2006 with what looks like a very old version of Excel. Unfortunately, I found the list confusing due to multiple entries as I mention above. What is the view about replacing the chart with something more modern, with a higher pixel resolution or in svg format? Should it include historical heights in some way? How many should be in the chart (certainly the current full list is way too many - maybe 25 will do)?

I have some suggetions: For each building, use a simple black shape (rectangular or triangular) to show current height, and a grey shaded shape to show a historical height in the same column. Add a year in a small font to show the date when something changed. Astronaut (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Buildings with exact same height

For buildings which have exactly the same height, what is the WP:MOS convention for ordering within the table? Alphabetical by city? Alphabetical by country? Or somethimg else? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no even guidline about it, so there are mulitiple options. As far as i can see none of these options is applied in the article unanimously. I prefer sorting by completion date (older first). --Jklamo (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I would not object to that proposal. It might be the best solution since we include historic buildings that no longer exist. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

german article

this is the first time the german article is much better than the english one. no pictures etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.2.254 (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The German article does indeed have photos. Opinion is probably divided on whether the images add to the article or not. Personally, I don't think they are necessary - after all, you can easily click on the relevant articles to see what a particular church looks like (assuming of course the destination aticle has an image). Astronaut (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Klara kyrka in Stockholm

Klara church in Stockholm measures 116 meters, not 105 as this article says. Can someone fix this? I'm afraid to fuck it all up if I try. --80.244.79.111 (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. A. Parrot (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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 13:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Basilika Notre-Dame de la Paix

This might seem a very idiotic post, specially taking into consideration that I've never been to this place in particular, but in the illustrations found in its own article it seems that the church in question is clearly smaller than stated by the posted height and definitely smaller than at least the churches that follow it on this list. Could it be that a mistake in the main article could have propagated into all these lists? It is entirely possible that I'm being misled by the pictures shown though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.154.69.241 (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of tallest church buildings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305001008/http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/wi/wi0000/wi0017/data/wi0017data.pdf to http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/wi/wi0000/wi0017/data/wi0017data.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305090355/http://www.thebasilica.org/timeline.php to http://www.thebasilica.org/timeline.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

tables under constructed header

Earlier this year two tables were added immediately below the constructed header.

There is no reference to these in the text and they lack a header. I have no idea how to interpret the numbers in those.

Do they refer to the number of churches built in a (non specified) time period, the total number of churches in a country (numbers appear unbelievably low for that) the number of churches on the list (and if so, why would that number be relevant at all to report in a table).

This needs to be urgently clarified or otherwise these tables deleted. Thanks. Arnoutf (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree.

If the table shows the number of churches on the list, in my opinion it would make little sense, since not all are listed, especially those with a height of less than 80-90m. Add to this the fact that the list does not seem to have a minimum height limit above which it is not allowed to include a church.

I think that in order to make the data complete, a minimum height limit should be specified as a rule (in the two top tables).--Podz00 (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I also agree. Seems that these tables are using just numbers from this list and all we know that this list is far from being considered as complete. So no added value from these tables for me (and original research).--Jklamo (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile the table has four columns, showing the 20 countries with the most churches surpassing 75 metres, and the 20 cities with the most churches surpassing 75, 90 and 100 metres respectively, according to the main list. I don't see how this is not an improvement. The improvement is: seeing at a glance in which countries/cities there are the most tall churches, and how many of them. The incompleteness of the table is no argument against it, since it just reflects and summarizes the also incomplete main list. Plus the 90 and 100 metre columns are not likely to change very often and can be regarded as "eternal". The main list has become very long. The only reason to list hundreds of uninteresting churches 75 metres tall is to add them up and see how many there are in the respective countries/cities. LoveGuys (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

As you can see from last edits, the list is really incomplete, even in 90-10 m section. Also nobody is updating "your" table against the current state of the list. I have removed the table.--Jklamo (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Highest brick church tower

The tower of the Martinskirche in Landshut is quoted as the tallest brick church tower in the world. The spire seems howhever to be of stonework. The brick part of the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekerk tower in Bruges might be actually taller as its spire is in brick. Grundeinzatstruppen (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

What about Angkor Wat?

The statement that Lincoln surpassed the Great Pyramid as the tallest building in the world is false. Angkor Wat has a height of 213 m (699 feet) and was built in the 1100s.

50.247.112.17 (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Ben Compton

Angkor Wat has a height of 65 m, which equals 213 feet. I guess there was a unit confusion in the source you used. It is fairly obvious that it is not 200 m high if you look at pictures of it. SmilingBoy (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions for the first list (taller than 99 meters)

I suggest in the first list (taller than 99 meters) to create a column for the position of each church (with numbers - 1, 2, 3, etc.). My arguments for this are:

1. This list seems complete, and even if it is not complete, there are certainly very few missing churches. Even if there are missing churches, they can be added at any time and this will not affect the list.

2. The total number of churches in this list is not too large and the numbering will not create any difficulties.

3. With numbers it will be clearer and more informative.

4. With a column with numbers it will be possible to sort the churches also from the lowest to the highest in this list.

I also propose to remove the column "H" from the first table (taller than 99 meters). My arguments for this proposal are:

1. This column in the first table is completely empty. There is not even a single filled field in it.

2. At the end of the article there is a separate list, which includes all the churches that would find a place in the "H" column of the first list.

Therefore, I suggest that in the first list, the "H" column be replaced by a "Rank" column or a "Number" column, which should include numbers for the position of each church.

I also suggest that the column "Name of the church" be before the column "Height", as in the list of the largest church buildings the column with the names of the churches is before the columns with the area and volume of the churches. So first the names, then the values. It is more logical and clear to have the names before the values.Puldin (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The numbering makes the update very difficult and tedious. Also, there is no single methodology, therefore the order is in fact arbitrary. I suggest to simply delete the H column with no replacement.

Why taller than 99 meters and not taller 100 meters? Forza NYCFC !! (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. I would also suggest to remove those who are not taller than 100 meters, because the list is already too long thomasmazzotta 15:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Dispute over "tallest building in the world"

@Podz00 Hey there! You reverted my edit [4] which reworded an image caption because you assert that the Mole Antonelliana was taller. This is totally OK, but in reverting my edit, you simply re-added the text "Tallest building in the world, 1890–1894", which describes the Ulm Minster. If you believe that the Mole Antonelliana was taller, I suggest that you find a source to cite and change the image caption to reflect what the source says.

tldr; you reverted my edit, but the words you don't like are still there. Toadspike (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Toadspike Hi, I think you missed my later edits where I deleted the text.

Regarding the source, several can be found on the Wiki page of the Mole Antonelliana. The official website of the National Museum of Cinema (which is housed in the building) reports the height and completion date: https://www.museocinema.it/en/museum-and-ma-prolo-foundation/mole-antonelliana but since the sentence has been deleted I don't see the need to add the source. Podz00 (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

You’re right, I didn’t see you fix the caption afterwards, sorry about that. It looks good now, more concise and uncontroversial. Thank you for revising it. Toadspike (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

List too long

Since the page's title is "tallest" church buildings, I think it would make more sense to keep only the tallest ones. By removing those under 99 meters, the list would still have more than 100 churches, which I think is enough for the purpose of this page. thomasmazzotta 18:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The list below 99 meters is separate from the main one and is the result of years of additions, I don't think it makes the page less readable or that it is off topic. Although I can understand that it may seem superfluous, it would be pity to trash it, imho. Podz00 (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving the article

My suggestions for improving the article are as follows:

• Introducing a definition for “church building”. I suggest that the definition contain at least two main elements: 1. architectural characteristics and features (at least the main ones) of the building (in relation to articles on church architecture); 2. purpose of the building (for church needs – services, liturgies, rituals, etc.).
• Introducing a distinction between “church building” and “church structure” (a church structure is, for example, a separate bell tower/observation tower/clock tower, etc.)
• Introducing a distinction between “main church building” and “secondary/serving/auxiliary church buildings/structures”, as well as “underground/lower church buildings/structures”, which are connected to the main church building but are not part of it as a whole.
• "Cleaning up" the main list by removing from it the structures/buildings that are separate towers and are not integrated (or are only partially integrated) into the main church buildings to which they belong.
• The main list should contain church buildings with a height of 100+ meters, not 99+ meters. This is more logical. In addition, the number "100" is a well-rounded number and is suitable for the main list boundary.
• Using the mathematical rule for rounding numbers (for example, 99.45 m. is rounded to 99.5 m., and 99.5 m. is rounded to 100.00 m.; 99.44 m. is rounded to 99 m.). This is necessary for a small number of church buildings and for their inclusion in the more appropriate list in relation to their specific height. For example, it is not logical that a certain church building, which is 99.52 m high (hypothetically) should not be included in the main list (100 and more meters) just because it is 40 or 50 centimeters lower than 100.00 m. 40 or 50 centimeters are negligible compared to 100 meters.
• Creating a separate list for “church structures” (separate bell towers, observation towers, clock towers, etc.) with a height of 100+ meters or 90+ meters. Or creating several separate lists for such church structures (on the model of the lists of church buildings).
• Splitting the secondary list (less than 100 meters) of church buildings and creating two or more new lists from it, for example: “≥95 m.<100 m.” and “<95 m.” or "≥95 m.<100 m.", "≥90 m.<95 m." and "<90 m." The new list ("≥95 m.<100 m") or the new two lists ("≥95 m.<100 m." and "≥90 m.<95 m") should follow the model of the main list (with images of the church buildings, etc.), and the list "<95 m." (or "<90 m") should remain in the same form as the secondary list so far.

If necessary, I can make additional clarifications and argue in more detail each of the proposals listed here. Puldin (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

+

• I also suggest removing the "dynamic list" label for the main list. This list (100+ meters) is complete or at worst almost complete. There is most likely no church building with height of 100 meters or more that has not already been added to this list, and even if such church buildings exist, their number is certainly very small. This list definitely meets the criteria for completeness, so the label "dynamic list that may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness" does not correspond to the essence of the main list. Puldin (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with most of the suggestions except these:

* "Cleaning up" the main list by removing from it the structures/buildings that are separate towers and are not integrated (or are only partially integrated) into the main church buildings to which they belong.

* Creating a separate list for “church structures” (separate bell towers, observation towers, clock towers, etc.) with a height of 100+ meters or 90+ meters. Or creating several separate lists for such church structures (on the model of the lists of church buildings).

Removing or separating towers that are not strictly part of a church can lead to controversy if the definition is not entirely clear. The type of structure could simply be specified in the notes, disagreements would be avoided.

* Splitting the secondary list (less than 100 meters) of church buildings and creating two or more new lists from it, for example: “≥95 m.<100 m.” and “<95 m.” or "≥95 m.<100 m.", "≥90 m.<95 m." and "<90 m." The new list ("≥95 m.<100 m") or the new two lists ("≥95 m.<100 m." and "≥90 m.<95 m") should follow the model of the main list (with images of the church buildings, etc.), and the list "<95 m." (or "<90 m") should remain in the same form as the secondary list so far.

Adding images to the new lists would make the page more tedious to scroll, although more informative. I am neutral here :) Podz00 (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Podz00. Thank you for your participation in the discussion and for your opinion. Your opinion is important to me. I am glad that we agree on almost all my suggestions. I will gradually implement the points on which we agree in the article.

As for the two points (in essence, it is one common point) about which you expressed concern here, I consider that this is the core of my entire list of points and is the most important suggestion. That is why I believe that I can convince you of this point as well (placing separate towers in a separate new list in the article). My arguments are as follows:

1. First of all, this is an encyclopedia and it should be characterized by accuracy and precision. Therefore, there should be no mixing of concepts.

For millions of people around the world, Wikipedia is the main or first source of information and incorrect, contradictory or mixed information in Wikipedia articles can mislead many people. This is especially true for this article about the tallest church buildings because many different materials (on websites, in the media, in blogs, on YouTube, etc.) cite this article, sometimes even literally.

Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-okXpxfAe4

This is the first Google result for videos related to the tallest churches.

If you watch the video, you will see that even its author is somewhat misled or confused by the information in this Wikipedia article. For some of the separate bell towers, which in this main list are declared as church buildings, he has placed photos of the churches themselves, but not of the bell towers associated with them, which are presented in the main list of this article.

2. Concerns about hypothetical controversies should not stop the improvement of Wikipedia articles and all improvements in general. It is for this purpose that talk pages were created. If anyone has objections, they can write them on this page and point out specific arguments, as I am now pointing out my arguments. Three weeks after the publication of my list of proposals here, no one has yet expressed disagreement with specific arguments regarding the separation of some church structures into a separate list.

3. Regarding the controversy itself. I consider that it is precisely the current version of the article that contains controversy because there is a mixture of different concepts and different types of buildings. For example, in the current version of the article, we can add to the main list some tall chimney of a nuclear power plant or a chimney of a factory if this chimney is simply declared to be some kind of church structure (for example, an abandoned chimney that has been "modified" into a "bell tower" or into a "church"). The same applies to skyscrapers and various other examples that are possible in theory (sometimes they exist in practice). It makes no sense to add such buildings and simply specify in the notes that they are, for example, chimneys, etc.

If we put the separate towers in a separate list, this will not lead to controversy, but on the contrary, it will remove the controversy that now exists.

4. In other articles with lists of tall church buildings in Wikipedia in English, as well as in other languages, a similar separation has already been made and there are separate lists of church buildings and bell towers within the same article. For example, in the article "List of the tallest Eastern Orthodox church buildings". There are no controversies and disagreements there. Therefore, there should be none here as well.

5. The proposal to put the separate towers in a separate list is directly related to the proposal to introduce a definition of a church building in the article. It makes no sense for an article in which hundreds of church buildings are listed and arranged in lists to lack at least a basic definition of a church building. We both (you and I) agree that there should be definitions for the terms "church building" and "church structure" in the article.

When we have definitions for church building and church structure in the article (in the near future), then it would not make sense for church structures that are not church buildings to appear in the main list of church buildings. This would contradict the very definitions that we will put in the article after some time. That is why the very introduction of the definitions (which we agree on) necessitates the creation of a separate list of church structures and the transfer of separate towers from the main list to this new list.

5.1. I propose to discuss the definition itself as a separate topic on this talk page. We need at least a basic definition or a working definition that should contain at least two elements in itself: 1. architectural features (characteristic and traditional for churches); 2. purpose (for church services, rituals, etc.; where people gather for individual or group religious needs, etc.). Of course, the definition can also be improved gradually, but as a start it is necessary and of paramount importance to apply at least a basic definition, at least for the needs of this article.

6. Regarding the notes column. It is not a place to indicate the type of building, but a place for brief additional information and interesting facts. The type of building is indicated in the title of the article itself and in the names of the lists in it. The notes column is also not a place or way to avoid disagreements. There is a discussion page for this purpose.

7. There are materials that present the topic of bell towers in great depth. For example, some Internet sites about bell towers in Italy. There, numerous bell towers are listed and arranged by height and are studied precisely as separate and independent buildings. Example: https://www.campanologia.org/statistiche/campanili-pi%C3%B9-alti-ditalia

List from the same source: https://www.campanologia.org/sites/www.campanologia.org/files/allegati_pagina_base/Campanili%20pi%C3%B9%20alti%20d%27Italia%20-%20altezza%20superiore%20ai%2070%20mt_15.pdf

Some of the bell towers in this material from Italy are placed in the main list of church buildings of this article. As you can see, in Italy itself they are explicitly distinguished and even arranged in a similar list, but not as church buildings.

Similar examples can also be found in other countries.

8. The number of separate towers in the main list is relatively small. Placing them on a separate list will not significantly affect the main list but will make it both more accurate and reliable, and a little easier to browse. Furthermore, since such towers are relatively few in the main list, it is unlikely that there will be any controversy or disagreement about their separation into a separate list.

Furthermore, if placed on a separate list, such separate towers will be in higher positions than they are in the main list, and this is another reason why there is likely to be no disagreement about their separation.

9. I propose a generous (figuratively speaking) approach in assessing which towers are separate and not an integral part of church buildings.

First, I will indicate which are an integral part. Any tower that is closely attached or substantially integrated* (*directly accessible from the tower into the church building and from the church building into the tower, without external open or unenclosed spaces or long enclosed connections) to a church building I consider to be part of its respective church building.

There are only a few such examples in the main list and I consider that each of them should remain in the main list. Such examples are: The Cathedral in Washington, DC; Seville Cathedral; the cathedrals in Antwerp and Bruges, Belgium; Olomouc Cathedral, Czech Republic; Billerbeck Cathedral, Germany.

Towers that do not meet these minimum requirements are not an integral part of the respective church buildings.

I see only two examples in the main list that are somewhat close to meeting the minimum criteria but are not an integral part of the respective church buildings. These are the towers respectively next to the church building in Lichen, Poland (an observation tower that is connected to the church building, but is not an integral part of it) and next to the cathedral in Aparecida, Brazil (a clock tower with floors with different purposes that is almost attached to the church building, but is not an integral part of it).

Example of architectural connections between separate independent buildings: https://settdesign.wordpress.com/2020/11/06/30-examples-of-connected-buildings/

I consider that the towers in Lichen, Poland and Aparecida, Brazil are examples of such connected buildings, but are not an integral part of the respective church buildings.

Furthermore, these two towers are not only architecturally separate but also functionally separate and with different purposes. The tower in Lichen, Poland is an observation tower and has no religious purpose, while the tower in Aparecida, Brazil is a clock tower and its floors are used for different purposes.

However, these two towers (as well as all completely separate towers) have a place in a separate list of the tallest church structures, which will include any towers that have any connection (architectural, functional, symbolic, historical or other) with the respective church buildings.

All separate towers in the main list are marked as such in the second column of the table, just below the names of the respective church buildings. Their total number in the main list in its current form is 11 or 12. This is a relatively small number. I propose that these towers be moved from the main list to a new list of the tallest church structures within the same article.

I hope that with all these arguments I manage to convince you of the need to create a separate list of the tallest church structures and that this list should be part of this article along with the other lists in it.

I will read your opinion on this topic with interest. Puldin (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Puldin From my point of view, if a tower is officially the bell tower of a church building and primarily serves that function (like the Torrazzo of Cremona), or follows the architectural style of the church structure but has other functions (such as the bell tower of Riverside Church in NYC or the tower of the Basilica of Our Lady of Licheń), then it is appropriate for it to be included in the main list. Creating a separate list would result in unnecessary fragmentation, which could be ambiguous in certain cases. (I’ve already mentioned some examples that have caused 'controversy', at least between the two of us 😅) That said, I don’t want to oppose your proposal — if you believe a separate list should be created for structures that don’t fit the definition of a 'church building', feel free to go ahead, as long as no one else has any objections 😉 Podz00 (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Height of St. Peter's Basilica

Hi @Puldin, I don't believe the newly stated height of St. Peter's Basilica is accurate. The sources used are not especially authoritative, and the figure provided differs significantly from the official value (136.57 meters) as well as from what is generally reported. This can also be verified through Google's 3D photogrammetric data, which indicates a height of approximately 136 meters from the ground. Podz00 (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Podz00. It all depends on what method is used to count the height, whether the total height is taken into account (we can call it gross height) or the height from the floor level inside (we can call it net height). All sources with figures for St. Peter's Basilica indicate the same values. The difference comes only from whether we count the height of the stairs outside (the height of the foundation) or only the net height (from the floor inside to the top of the cross outside). The height of the foundation (stairs) of St. Peter's Basilica is approximately between 4 and 5 meters (maybe around 4.5 meters).

Years ago I found drawings of the Basilica and by checking the scale I measured the corresponding heights with an approximate accuracy that I think is within no more than +/- 1 meter. It matches the data from the sources mentioned.

In fact, the net height method is probably the most suitable for church buildings, but anyway, most church buildings on the list are presented with their gross (total) height and not their net height. In other words, for most church buildings on the list (and for church buildings in general) the total height from ground level outside to the highest point outside (cross/statue/weather vane, etc.) is given. Therefore, this method (total height) should be applied to all church buildings on the list and in general. Otherwise (if different methods are used) church buildings cannot be compared with each other and cannot be arranged in a list because it would be something like the popular idiom of comparing apples and oranges. :)

By the way, a similar case was the height of People's Salvation Cathedral in Bucharest for which the official website states the net height (from the floor inside to the top of the cross outside; sometimes even without the height of the cross) as the official height but at the same time the official website also states the height from the ground level outside to the floor level. So in this list, as well as in the article about this cathedral in Wikipedia, I put the total height. I did the same for St. Peter's Basilica in this list.

When it comes to comparing and ranking multiple church buildings, it is more convenient and more appropriate to use only the total height (of course, from the ground/square level, without lower churches, basements, hills, canyons, etc.) because for some church buildings the total height is equal to the net height (they have no foundation and stairs, so the floor level inside coincides with the ground/square level outside).

Actually, I was thinking of putting a note together with the two sources next to the number for the height of St. Peter's Basilica in the list. This note could specify that it is the total height that includes the foundation/stairs (5 meters stairs + 136.6 meters from the floor to the top of the cross = 141.6 meters). If you consider it necessary, you can put such or a similar note next to the two sources for the height of St. Peter's Basilica in the list. Puldin (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Puldin I'm also referring to the height measured from ground level, which is the one typically reported by sources. As you may recall, another commonly cited figure was 133.30 meters, likely measured from the interior floor or the front staircase. This value is mentioned on the Vatican’s official website: https://www.vatican.va/content/vatican/en/ra/cupolone-lanterna.html.

The figure of 136.57 meters (https://web.archive.org/web/20200719235438/https://www.vaticanstate.va/it/monumenti/basilica-di-san-pietro/cupola.html) is almost certainly measured from the ground and aligns with photogrammetric data, taking as reference the terrain level at the sides of the transepts.

Frankly, it's the first time I've come across the 141-meter figure, which no source appears to have ever mentioned, despite the standard convention being to measure building height from ground level. Podz00 (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Podz00, here is a drawing of the basilica: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/St_Peters_722.jpg

Used here: https://ohiostate.pressbooks.pub/exploringarchitectureandlandscape/chapter/st-peters-basilica/

On the right side of the drawing there is a scale with heights in feet and meters. The scale is graduated to a height of 90 meters but you can easily extend it on a computer with the same scale to the top of the cross. My measurement from this drawing gives a value of almost exactly 140 meters total height, with a variation of about +/-1 meter. A similar measurement from another drawing (longitudinal plan) gave the same or very close result.

This drawing states "452 feet (137.8 meters) from the top of the cross to the pavement" but it seems to refer to the floor level inside, not the ground level outside. This also matches the data in the two sources that I have included in the table. That is why, in my opinion, the difference comes precisely from the height of the foundation and depending on whether it is taken into account or not.

However, if you are sure that the total height from ground level outside to the top of the cross is 136.6 meters, you can put this value in the table of the list and add one or more sources that you consider to be the most reliable and authoritative (although sometimes authoritative sources give unreliable information). Puldin (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Puldin I don't know which book the drawing originally comes from, but it doesn't seem particularly accurate to me. In fact, measuring from the pavement to the cross according to the indicated scale gives about 442 feet, which is 10 feet less than the stated figure. Using Google's 3D photogrammetric data — which I have verified to be very accurate — the measurement from the ground next to the transept apses is about 136–137 meters, which exactly matches the value given by the official source. I therefore consider this figure more reliable and I would suggest including this measurement in the list. Are you ok with that? Podz00 (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. Put in the table the number you consider to be the most accurate. Puldin (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)