Talk:Brooklyn Bridge/Archive 2

American Experience special?

Wasn't the bridge a topic of a PBS American Experience special? This should be mentioned in the article. --98.232.178.38 (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been the topic of lots of things - most aren't that notable. 96.241.212.214 (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

First line of the article does not read correct

The first line of the article The Brooklyn Bridge curently reads like this. "The Brooklyn Bridge is the day when the black community united and spilled their tea on the water Completed in 1883, it connects the New York City boroughs of Manhattan and Brooklyn by spanning the East River." Some one has played around with it. Needs some correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradeep.khot (talk • contribs) 08:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Other significant historical information lacking

I'm of the opinion that there are other significant historical pieces of information lacking, for instance, the use of a variety of techniques pioneered by Roebling for this bridge. Various of this bridge's construction methods have been repeated ad-infinitum since Roebling employed the techniques, marking it as (from an engineering standpoint) truly groundbreaking in a variety of ways (steel usage, method of spinning the cables, method of wrapping the cables, it's TRIPLE suspension method (cable stay, main stay and lateral stays (that most people never remember or notice, from the towers to the road deck parallel to the deck/water surface), caissons and pneumatic chambers, and so on)).

Any thoughts? RobertMfromLI | User Talk 17:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

a few bits that were not on the page

the first person to cross the bridge was Emily Warren Roebling and john Roebling believed in hydration therapy (a processes where you pore water over an open wound) this is partially attributed to his death as it would have made the infection worse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.27.17.100 (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Opinions of John Roebling unrelated to the BB do not belong here. - Denimadept (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Images

The article, as now reconfigured, has taken many of the best images and grouped them all together at the bottom in a gallery. Up top is a not particularly striking shot of workers on the bridge construction. In my opinion, the visual presentation of the piece was way better before. MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, the images were too much. I've removed nearly all of them, as the "Gallery" is depreciated. The images were largely redundant shots or renderings much too similar. I've removed all but two in favor of media in Commons. The remaining construction image at the bottom, and the night panorama shot moved to the NRHP infobox should suffice with the day shot in the Bridge infobox. - Denimadept (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Gee golly, I don't know what I was thinking this looked way better [1] I can't believe I put a "not particularly striking shot of workers on the bridge construction" in the section on "Bridge Construction". The 3 mile long infobox looks smashing, I like it almost as much as putting a picture in the reference section. "The remaining construction image at the bottom, and the night panorama shot moved to the NRHP infobox should suffice with the day shot in the Bridge infobox" and your opinion "should suffice" more than everyone else's because...?

And um what exactly is the relevance of this: "On June 1993, following thirteen reconnoiters inside the metal structure and with the help of mountain guide, Thierry Devaux performed (illegal) eight acrobatic bungee jumping above the East River close to the Brooklyn pear and in early morning. He used an electric winch between each acrobatic figures". (sic) not only is it trivial and irrelevant but it's also written in Pidgin English.

What's this:" References are often nowadays more oblique, such as "I could sell you some lovely riverside property in Brooklyn ..."". That's corny and nobody says it.

Hart Crane begins with a poem entitled "Proem: To Brooklyn Bridge.(sic)"

"Gallery" is depreciated (sic) I think the word your looking for is "deprecated" not "depreciated".

"In my opinion, the visual presentation of the piece" is it's a poorly written article that wouldn't cut it in sixth grade English. 7mike5000 (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Then fix it. If you feel there should be more images, or the article is poorly written, or whatever, fix it. Others are free to disagree with you. I feel there were too many similar images in the article, all still accessible using the link to Commons, and fixed it. See WP:BE BOLD for details. Furthermore, if you are offended by infoboxes, there are some people who agree with you. I feel that they provide a quick summary, and spread them around as much as I can, but you're welcome to disagree. Note that if you try removing them from this article, you'll be reverted. - Denimadept (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The way it looks now Brooklyn Bridge is neat in the literal sense, this [2] is not neat. There are differences of opinion and then there is just the way it is. I'm human I make asinine mistakes like everybody else, but what I try not to do is disparage anyones elses creative ability or lack therof.

Infoboxes:When the infoboxes are 3 mile long it looks like crap. Both of them are still there just not crammed together.

Pictures: As far as the pictures you are 100% right there were way too many and it did look like crap.

Information: As far as the article itself the Brooklyn Bridge is unique for many reasons including for technical inovation, none of which is mentioned.

Writing Style this is deplorable English composition, subject matter aside: "On June 1993, following thirteen reconnoiters inside the metal structure and with the help of mountain guide,..." (sic) I'm not going to win a Pulitzer, but we all learn basic English composition in school.

The Brooklyn Bridge is a New York, an American and an architectural icon, a little more effort could be put into making it look presentable. 7mike5000 (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Total length of bridge

The in-line citation for the total length of the bridge is a link to the NYCDOT page about the bridge [3]. This primary source (thye own the bridge) states that the total length is 6,016 feet. This does not match the fact listed in the article. Most sources list the length at 5989 ft as shown in the article.
Does anyone know why the city is giving the length at 6,016? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not me. You might try calling them and finding out. - Denimadept (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Found the discrepancy. Some [4] report the Brooklyn approach as 998'. Others [5] report it at 971'. This accounts for the difference between 5,989 and 6,016. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder which is correct. :-d - Denimadept (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No baby games

It's supposed to be a collaborative effort, so I really don't want to play baby games. Let other people decide what looks more presentable. This [6] or this [7] It's not a personal contest. 7mike5000 (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And it's not supposed to be combative either, but you've come into this with that kind of attitude, or so it seems. The way those two infoboxes work is that the NRHP is embedded in the other one. That's just the way it was written. - Denimadept (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm one of those "other people". In my opinion, the first version, with the top photo from the second, will look more impressive and carry more useful and essential information than the second one as it stands. Let's try that combination. Perhaps the "games" can end in a compromise where everybody wins. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

question

The article says the brooklyn bridge was the tallest structure in the western hemisphere for several years; seems unlikely since the washington memorial in washington dc was completed in 1884- just a year later- and its 555 feet high, to quote the wikipedia page on the subject. i think it should get corrected because this urban legend has got copied into many other websites.Sangeetarai71 (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The figures I found support your assertion. - Denimadept (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Early construction photo

I ran across this stereo card that appears to be rather early in the construction of the bridge. This and/or others in Commons:Category:Construction of the Brooklyn Bridge might be a good addition to the article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, the decision to prune most of the images from the article has removed a lot of good images. I am all for other images being re-added. Many notable (for their beauty or status as iconic) bridges have picture galleries devoted to it. Why the galleries and additional images in this article were removed, I do not know. Heck, it's sister bridge (built by the same family) has a very nice gallery attached. You definitely have my support for adding more images/gallery to the article, but I suspect that a full discussion and attempt to form a consensus should be attempted first, as (IIRC) it was pretty recent that the gallery and other pictures were pruned from the article. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 06:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Galleries were depreciated. If you click on the Commons link, you'll get all the pictures that were removed plus many others. - Denimadept (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that the Commons link goes to over 200 images, including the one mentioned by JMabel. - Denimadept (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Edison Video Uploaded to Commons

Here Its Public Domain Video by Thomas Eddison in 1899 crossing the Brooklyn Bridge. It may be a worth while addition for this article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

RS for inclusion [8] The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

material

where the materials for producing the bridge all manufactured in the US or imported from Europe? ie the steel etc?

reg casualties

In the current version (May 29, 2011, 12.50 IST) the section Construction has the following mention: "The bridge cost $15.5 million to build and approximately 27 people died during its construction.[21]"

Approximately???? Also, reference 21 does not exist.

Could someone supply the exact number (and remove the incorrect and inappropriate "approximately"!) and give an extant reference in place of it? --V suresh74 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, reference 21 is right there. Click on it. If you want an exact number, find it in a reference and update the article. - Denimadept (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Having now checked the reference, I don't see anything in there to agree with what it's being used for. OTOH, you might want to check this link out. - Denimadept (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Opening Date

The infobox currently displays two dates (May 23 and 24) as possible dates of the bridge opening. I attempted to edit and resolve the issue, but another user immediately reversed my edits, so I want to open this up for discussion. For this user's reasoning, see User_talk:Denimadept#Brooklyn_Bridge_2. Nearly every reliable source on this subject agrees that the opening ceremonies occurred, and the bridge was dedicated, on May 24, 1883. For example, please refer to the Brooklyn Public Library's archives of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle and read through articles on both May 23 (1, 2) and May 24. In addition, see the invitation to the ceremony, the cover of another newspaper, the text of Mayor Ed Koch's 1983 proclamation (under the section "Mayor's Tribute"), as well as the first few lines of this page of a bulletin from the New York Public Library.

After searching, I can find only one source that uses the May 23 date, and it is a website that is itself a secondary source which has poor citations and no clear explanation of why the 23rd should be the correct date. It also contradicts itself by later referencing May 24, 1983 as the 100th anniversary of the opening. I'm confused why this single source should be considered reliable when so many reputable, contemporary sources directly contradict it. Batsarentbugs (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am adding an "unreliable source" tag for the source which is currently cited in support of May 23 as the opening date. The source is self-published (see here) and is contradicted by many other reliable sources as stated above. If the links above are not definitive, I suggest using this book as a source for the opening date. As recommended by WP:RSEX, it is a scholarly source published by an academic press which agrees on the May 24 opening date. - Batsarentbugs (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In his book The Great Bridge: The Epic Story of the Building of the Brooklyn Bridge, the American historian David McCullough cites 24 May 1883 as the opening date of the Brooklyn Bridge.[9] Given McCullough's track record, I think it's safe to cite 24 May as the opening date. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have also repeated this research and have found that the 24th of May of 1883 is clearly the correct date and that is corroborated by countless sources including this invitation to the opening of the bridge. I am removing the May 23rd date because it creates a question of credibility for the entire article for the reader when substantial evidence clearly refutes the May 23rd date. We must remain committed to the quality of information above all else. Daniel McMullen (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You'll get no argument from me... I was trying to be fair, but y'all are right. - Denimadept (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Mass Arrests

Would the 700+ arrests as part of the Occupy Wall Street movement qualify as a notable event for this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtFF8 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why they would. The article is about the bridge, not about a political movement. I expect there's an Occupy Wallstreet article in which such information would be appropriate. - Denimadept (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

But there is a whole section of the article titled "Notable Events," and I would imagine that a mass arrest of 700+ people qualifies as a notable event — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtFF8 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

True, and a number of those (various jumpers, 125th anniversary) don't belong there. You do what you want, I suppose, but I won't guarantee that others will leave this kind of thing there. - Denimadept (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that's why I was bringing it up here first. I wasn't 100% sure if it would be appropriate or not, it seems like it could fit in, but there is of course some doubt. KurtFF8 —Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Suspension System information update

I'd love to know if someone who's a fan or engineering type would like to help update the information on the suspension system of the bridge. It does not incorporate two cabling systems - it incorporates three as is evident in closeups of the towers where the truss system travels through them.

I'd also like to restore the gallery - for some reason, one of the most iconic bridges in the world (and the most relevant bridge when it comes to bridge engineering) is lacking a gallery while far less notable bridges have them. I think the decision to remove the gallery was... silly... to put it mildly.

I also think, since it's paramount to all sorts of suspension bridges, that it should be mentioned that suspension bridge building is still based off the innovations created for the construction of this bridge. Not much has changed in many of those areas (the cable winding, the main-stay and cable-stay systems, and much more are still done using Roebling's methods (albeit, often with non manpowered equipment) even to this day. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Galleries are not needed and are generally against policy. See WP:IG. This bridge has plenty of pictures available at Commons. Most bridges with galleries are just waiting for them to be removed. At this time, I know of only one exception. - Denimadept (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

New image needing placement

I'm not a regular at this article, so will leave it to others to place or not place this new image. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Poetry and the bridge

deserves its own section. it's a shame that there isn't one, given that Russian wikipedia has a section on Hart Crane and Vladimir Mayakovsky. we should really have it, too.108.182.100.33 (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Love lock practice

Love lock practice comes from the Italian novel for teenagers "Tre metri sopra il cielo" ("Three meters above heaven") by Federico Moccia, where it appeared for the first time. The teenage couple protagonist of the novel attached the love lock to the Ponte Milvio Bridge, in Rome. The practice gained extreme popularity in 2004, when a movie based on the novel, starring Italian teenage idol Riccardo Scamarcio, was released.

Marcello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.185.25.219 (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You might want to check out the Love lock article. - Denimadept (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"Public Relations Triumph of 1983" - Centennial

The BB centennial was declared by Inc. the "public relations triumph of 1983." This demonstrates, to a 2014 audience, the scope and currency of contemporaneous views toward the celebration, without which, no description of fireworks and photo opps does the "centennial" section justice. Common sense seems like the addition of one sentence mentioning that fact would be a pretty straightforward WP:BOLD edit, however, InternetMeme and Hertz1888 have reverted my edit because, they allege, I am attempting to engage in WP:PROMOTION for Dudley-Anderson-Yutzy, the company that organized the centennial celebrations ... and which went out of business in 1983. For the record, I am not currently paid to promote Dudley-Anderson-Yutzy and, in case anyone is wondering, I'm also not currently being paid to promote the Dutch East India Company or George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign (though I have made edits to those pages as well). I have even offered Hertz1888 the opportunity to raise this strange allegation in ANI and proactively offered to post a scan of my passport to establish the fact I wasn't even born when Dudley-Anderson-Yutzy went out of business ... again, in 1983! BlueSalix (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I note InternetMeme has now decided to let an edited version of my Inc. sentence make it into the centennial section, editing it so as to obfuscate a wikilink to the entry for Dudley-Anderson-Yutzy. I'm really fine with that because, again, I am not paid to promote any companies let alone companies that have been out of business for 30 years. Since Dudley-Anderson-Yutzy is a near-orphaned entry, however, I would prefer to include a wikilink, which would take up no additional word count and could not possibly cause any WP:PROMOTION since the company has, if I haven't mentioned it yet, been out of business for 30 years. However, since the entire premise of this discussion (that I am a COI editor paid to promote businesses that have been defunct for 30 years) is so ridiculous I won't belabor that point as long as the Inc. encapsulating quote has finally made it in. BlueSalix (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to show your passport or otherwise prove your bona fides. As the warning template states (emphasis added), "IF you are affiliated... you MAY have a conflict of interest", which evidently does not apply. Your edit has (or had) a decidedly promotional tone, coupled with a source that says very little about the bridge and a lot about the P-R company; as such it is also borderline off-topic. Leaving out the company's name (and link) will help tone down the edit and make it less questionable. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you're referring to the company that doesn't exist and has been out of business for 30 years when you say my edit had a "decidedly promotional tone", correct? Just out of idle curiosity, when you left the template on my talk page, what exactly were you imagining was occurring? Did you think this obscure NY ad agency that has been out of business for 30 years was about to reincorporate and scoring a wikilink on the Brooklyn Bridge WP page was part of their comeback strategy? I don't want this to come across as confrontational, because it's absolutely not intended to be, it's just this is such a really strange and bizarre use of the COI template that I feel my curiosity is reasonable. You're also continuing to use the affirmative word "questionable" to refer to my edit which seems to indicate you still suspect I may somehow be working to promote a company that has been out of business for 30 years. (Also, I do believe the process of de-orphaning articles as per WP:ORPH merits some consideration once we can shake the sillies out by dispatching this objectively nuisance WP:PROMOTION accusation you've chosen to level against me.) BlueSalix (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You do come across as confrontational. You are the one – the only one – being accusatory here, and persistently so. Please desist. There was nothing in the edit or the cited INC article (written in present tense, by the way) to indicate the agency was long out of business. The tone of the edit was highly promotional. The INC article is about the bridge celebration only in passing, otherwise about the agency, at great length. As I have already acknowledged, the COI template proved to be inapplicable. It is conditionally worded and never was an accusation. "Questionable" refers to the amount of weight given the agency in the text, where it was featured, and not to the promotional aspect as such. We've dealt with that; by now it should be clear to everyone that you are not engaging in promotion for D-A-Y. Time for it to become a non-issue. If the COI shoe does not fit, fine, please refrain from bringing it up again. As for the "orphan" matter, that should not concern us here in editing the BB article. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

First, your apology for accusing me of engaging in PR vandalism - extremely aggressive though it is - is accepted. Thank you for offering it. Second, orphaned articles are everyone's business on WP. Since you've evolved your position to accept that a wikilink to D-A-Y cannot be WP:PROMOTIONAL (since it has been out of business for 30 years), do you have any objection other than "not our concern" to putting a wikilink in to the WP entry for the organizer of the 1983 centennial celebration? As demonstrated from the most recent iteration of the edit, this would require no additional words. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how it would require no additional words. Regardless, I do object to putting the firm back in, as I don't believe it would enhance the BB article. I regard the current entry as ample and sufficient. You are welcome, of course, to continue seeking consensus for a different wording, but I have no more time to devote to this already long-winded discussion. D-A-Y does not appear to be an orphan, and if it were, it would not be our job here to link to it just to save it from orphanhood. I suggest you seek other avenues for linking to it. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Hertz1888! BlueSalix (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

To new participants in the discussion, here is the current wording:

• Media coverage of the centennial was declared "the public relations triumph of 1983" by Inc..

here is my suggested edit:

• Media coverage of the centennial was declared "the public relations triumph of 1983" by Inc.

My suggested revision adds a wikilink to another Wikipedia entry and also ends the sentence with one period. Hertz' version (current) has two periods at the the end of the sentence and no wikilink. Hertz has expressed the opinion that, once a Wikipedia article obtains perfection, no one should edit it and it should be guarded from other editors (I regard the current entry as ample and sufficient.) My positions is that there are no fiefdoms in WP and we should collaboratively work to expand the collective body of knowledge, as per WP:Orphan which says: it is therefore helpful to add links from other suitable pages with similar and/or related information. De-orphaning articles is an important aspect of building the web. Hertz and I are eager to hear others input. BlueSalix (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not express any such opinion. You are twisting the meaning of my words. Don't do that. And, eager as I may be, please speak only for yourself. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I provided what I feel is an accurate summary of your position for the benefit of new readers. Regardless, I directly quoted you and your statement is 3 inches up on the screen so anyone is free to read it first-hand if they like, there's no need to stress out. BlueSalix (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I was randomly asked to participate by an RFC bot but I don't think it will be fruitful to continue this discussion. A proper RFC starts with a simple, neutral question without editorializing or a description of the positions taken or the reasons for them. Without a neutral question at the start most RFCs are doomed to end in dissension not consensus. I suggest this RFC be abandoned now and a new one begun properly. Jojalozzo 01:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, lozzo. I will do that. BlueSalix (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edit to Centennial section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here is the current wording:

Media coverage of the centennial was declared "the public relations triumph of 1983" by Inc..

here is my suggested edit:

Media coverage of the centennial was declared "the public relations triumph of 1983" by Inc.

My suggested revision adds a wikilink to another Wikipedia entry and also ends the sentence with one period. The other version (current) has two periods at the the end of the sentence and no wikilink. Another editor has expressed the opinion that the revised version would be promotional and is highly questionable as it may be an effort to promote the company to which the wikilink directs. I contend it would not be promotional as it is a wikilink to the orphaned article of a company that has been out of business since 1983 and that defunct businesses cannot benefit from promotion. Also that per WP:Orphan: it is therefore helpful to add links from other suitable pages with similar and/or related information. De-orphaning articles is an important aspect of building the web. Further, I believe there is nothing inherently promotional about ending a sentence with a single period but it is, rather, a question of good grammar. BlueSalix (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Per previous section, no objections remain regarding the supposedly promotional aspect. It is a dead horse issue. All that persists is a perceived matter of undue emphasis. The double punctuation has been corrected. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - The linked content simply identifies who was responsible for the media coverage and does not explicate the text "the public relations triumph of 1983". I do not consider that information (which is available in the referenced source) particularly relevant to this article. If it was relevant we'd include it in the sentence, e.g.

Media coverage of the centennial, managed by Dudley-Anderson-Yutzy, was declared "the public relations triumph of 1983" by Inc..

but I think that is clearly undue. Jojalozzo 20:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Would anyone mind if I drank some tea from this teapot? - Denimadept (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, and then I think Legobot would be thrilled if you shared your considered opinion. Jojalozzo 00:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see this as a significant issue. Perhaps a better wording would have been to ask if I could drink some of the tempest in this teapot. - Denimadept (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Support – A link like that is a great way to de-orphan an article. However, it probably belongs outside of the quote itself. So, instead of

Media coverage of the centennial was declared "the public relations triumph of 1983" by Inc.

we have:

Media coverage of the centennial was declared "the public relations triumph of 1983" by Inc., referring to a campaign that occurred that year.

--Epicgenius (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a great idea to me! BlueSalix (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Support I was invited to this RfC from the bot, and agree. That's a perfect way of doing it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Images again

After an image got moved by an IP user, I looked through the images. Do we need the tablets image? The tablets image isn't the one which got moved, but I don't see the tablets image as distinctive. OTOH, I wonder if others do. Opinions, please? - Denimadept (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

First flight

The Caproni Ca.5 used in the first flight under the Brooklyn Bridge was NOT the world's biggest airplane even at the time -- the Vickers Vimy was bigger, and so was the Handley Page O/400. I've changed the text to reflect this fact. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Visitor attractions in New York City

That is added in the article, but the bridge is not in it. As far as I know, that should be the requirement for the add. 212.50.203.198 (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It's recommended, but it's not required. Epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Cable-stayed?

The first line of the article describes the bridge as a "hybrid cable-stayed/suspension" type bridge but never elaborates or gives citation. I was always under the impression that the non-vertical cables were structurally unnecessary and I've never anywhere seen the Brooklyn Bridge referred to as cable-stayed. Anyone with more knowledge of this feel like clarifying/fixing? Quodfui (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Exit ramps

Why is there no info about exit ramps, especially the ramp by the manhattan-bound side that leaves off near police plaza, and has been closed since 9/11? Boardg (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's been no interest. You might add such info. - Denimadept (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Pedestrian and vehicular access image

I put up this image in the Pedestrian and Vehicular Access section, but it was removed due to bad placement. Can someone clarify to me (someone other than the person who removed it) as to why it's bad placement? The bridge is so clearly visible, the pedestrian walkway is so clearly visible and the skyline is also as visible as the bridge itself. How is it bad placement? Also, given the fact that no other image in the entire article or the gallery shows this view of the bridge and the skyline, I think this image should be in the mentioned section in the proper size so as to help people understand the section better. If no other editor, except the one who I disagree with replies to this section, I'm going to revert the revert on my edit. D437 (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there Deadly437, just wanted to add that even if the other editor (Epicgenius) is the only one to reply with feedback, you should still work with them to resolve it, rather than just revert. I can see in the edit summary, they suggested the image in question might go better in the gallery. Chrisw80 (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I too consider placement inappropriate. The photo does not show any aspect of how the bridge is accessed, as one might expect in this section, and the caption confirms this by referring only to something (the skyline) that can be viewed from the bridge. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

But, the image clearly shows people walking on the walkway! I mean, if all the editors of this particular category and article consider this "inappropriately" placed, then that's ok. But, I don't want to keep this in the gallery. Its a beautiful image and if at all anything, I want people to see it on the article, rather than the gallery. If the section I put it in seems in poor placement, then kindly suggest another section to put it in. If, no section can hold, I will go ahead and make moves to have it removed from Wikimedia Commons. Thanks people! D437 (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The reference to the Waco bridge in the Brooklyn Bridge article should be deleted

(Moved from User_talk:Dan_Koehl)

The Brooklyn Bridge article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Bridge ) includes the sentence "Construction of the bridge began in 1869.[12] The bridge was designed by German immigrant John Augustus Roebling, who had previously designed and constructed shorter suspension bridges, such as Roebling's Delaware Aqueduct in Lackawaxen, Pennsylvania, the Waco Suspension Bridge[17] and the John A. Roebling Suspension Bridge between Cincinnati, Ohio, and Covington, Kentucky "

I just read The Great Bridge by David McCullough. I was surprised to see no reference to the Waco Suspension Bridge in the text or index, since I had a vague memory of Roebling having something to do with the Waco bridge. In above sentence, I clicked on Waco Suspension Bridge and got to the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Suspension_Bridge . That page attributes the building of the Waco bridge to Thomas M. Griffith, not John Roebling. That page does say that the wire for the cables came from Roebling's Sons company in Trenton, NJ, at the time a leading wire manufacturer.

I think that the reference to the Waco bridge in the Brooklyn Bridge article should be deleted.

This is my first time doing anything with Wikipedia but reading it. I struggled with how to express my opinion that the article should be edited, and finally made the change you noted. If you have more information on Roebling's personal involvement in the Waco bridge, please let me know.

Cwchapoton (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brooklyn Bridge. 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/20100528011207/http://www.asce.org/PPLContent.aspx?id=2147487328 to http://www.asce.org/PPLContent.aspx?id=2147487328
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061016115509/http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/BuildingDetail/435.php to http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/BuildingDetail/435.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) 08:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brooklyn Bridge. 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/20100823234835/http://www.sunnydream.info/index.php?page=brooklyn to http://www.sunnydream.info/index.php?page=brooklyn

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) 17:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Prehistory?

Might someone have reasonably easy access to documentation of the prehistory on this?

I just added, "John Roebling reportedly conceived of the bridge in 1952,[17] and spent part of the next 15 years working to sell the idea", with a citation. However, I don't know how good that citation is. If I remember correctly, Ken Burns' "Brooklyn Bridge" said something like it took him 15 years to sell the idea.

I think it's important to have a comment with a solid citation on this point: Major, path breaking achievements like this often take a long time to get off the ground -- from conception to the official start of the project.

If my memory and what I've seen on this recently is accurate, the project was conceived in 1952 and sold to politicians in 1867. Work on final drawings began at that point and construction began in 1969.

However, I'm not sure about this, and other commitments prevent me from spending more time on this. However, I think it's important, and I hope someone else will be able to clarify this with a better citation or fix it if it's wrong. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brooklyn Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Happypillsjr (talk · contribs) 03:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll also review this, comments to follow - I've been watching the updates to it as well :)-- Happypillsjr ✉ 03:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Pass. No issue.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Pass
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass. No oringinal research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass. No copyright violations nor plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Most images are in good quality and self work.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Medias are relevant. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

@Happypillsjr: Thanks for the comments. I noticed that the review is on hold, which means there are 7 days to resolve the issues. Are there any specific problems I should fix? epicgenius (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Just a couple of things, make sure all media are relevant to each topic of this article and no original research. Lastly, I will focus on the topics without going into unnecessary details. That's all.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 03:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Happypillsjr: Thanks for these comments. I think the media are all relevant, and there is no original research. Also, it looks like the topics are all focused and do not contain unnecessary details. Unless there's something specific I'm missing, then all of these concerns have been resolved. epicgenius (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Overall

@Epicgenius:, I made a conclusion that this article is success. Great work! Happypillsjr ✉ 05:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)