Jump to content

Talk:BP Pedestrian Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleBP Pedestrian Bridge is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 22, 2010.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 14, 2008Good article nomineeListed
July 26, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 23, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
October 9, 2008Good topic candidatePromoted
October 20, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 2, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
June 16, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
May 22, 2010Today's featured articleMain Page
January 25, 2022Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 5, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Frank Gehry used a hollow design for the BP Pedestrian Bridge in order to reduce the load on underground parking garages that support the bridge?
Current status: Featured article


Pictures

[edit]

First off, thanks for creating this page as well as the Millennium Park template. Both were desperately needed. Secondly, I was wondering if you think all 5 of these images currently in the article are needed. I think one of the pictures of the park and one of the pictures on the bridge would be enough. More than that in the article makes it a little cluttered in my opinion, plus I added them all to the its commons page. I think I'm going to take a picture of the bridge from Upper Randolph for the infobox picture. With these 3 images, all of the main points would be illustrated beautifully. Torsodog (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate an image for the infobox. I have one from Randolph on the day of the Chicago Marathon, which is not really proper for the main image. As the text gets longer more images are useful. I would agree to remove one of the two that are at a similar angle facing northwest. Probably the one on the bridge because the other shows the outside.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Given the image that we have, I think from Randolph you would need to zoom in with a landscape photo to make a good main image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could also use an image of the steel shingles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a GA review, but I have a quick comment that I know would probably come up in a review. The image layout isn't too good, at lease on my screen, and all the text is squeezed into narrow columns. Is it possible to just stick to one image per section, if not less? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What resolution are you using and are you using full screen viewing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

[edit]

I removed WP:WPVA and added several templates. I believe the bridge is a work of art, but am not sure it properly falls under the Visual arts project. Comments appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:BP Pedestrian Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Well written but I have a few issues:
  1. B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    After further consideration... I removed the image of the chicago marathon, and relocated the large 4-part image into its own section to avoid stackups and squeezeing the text with too many images. Contrary to what most wikipedians have heard, image galleries are not "discouraged"... only pages that consist entirely of an image gallery are discouraged. I started to remove the "from overpass" and "from ramp" images but, they aren't that great and this page already has a few too many for its size. But with the addition of the gallery section I was able to accommodate them. I'm still not entirely satisfied with the captions, but this isn't Featured Article review, so they are simply "good" enough.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Overall, well written, well sourced, and well composed article. I like to see complete sentences in photo captions, but that is personal preference and not a GA requirement, so I'll let that pass. But captions are important as many people, when they first encounter an article, simply skim thru and glance at the photos while reading the captions... this is where you have the chance to capture the reader's attention and draw them into reading the entire article. I tend to pay attention to photo captions more than anything when I am composing an article, I think they are the most important part. But that's just my advice. I would gladly pass this once the issues are addressed. I made some edits to the article and if I changed anything I shouldn't have please let me know or fix it. Thanks to all the contributors for their hard work in writing this article, especially Tony. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Designed to bear a heavy load without structural problems caused by its own weight" Has any bridge anywhere NOT been designed thusly, successfully or not?

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

[edit]

Dear contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. If anyone objects to my proposal to free the dates of autoformatting in the main text in a day or two on a trial basis, please say so below. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links.

Critically, since I’m an FAC reviewer, I want to state in unequivocal terms that whether or not contributors object to this proposal will have absolutely no bearing on my review or declaration at FAC. I’m proposing the action because FAC is an influential process, not because nominators might feel under obligation—they shouldn’t. Tony (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My compliments

[edit]

I just noticed the map that was added and it really makes a great difference in this already outstanding article. I haven't seen many articles just about this bridge, they are usually about the pavilion. So I think this is a really unique and wonderful page. My compliments to the contributors. DVD 23:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On my monitor now though I'm noticing that the map reduces the text to the left of it to a two or three word wide column. I think the infobox has a few too many parameters causing a big blank space to the right of the map. Maybe the map can be shrunk so it doesn't make the text too narrow or maybe it can be moved elsewhere in the article. But in all honesty, I think the infobox should be shrunk rather than the map as some of the info seems redundant. Well on second thought, I just put the map towards the end of the page. Revert, discuss, edit please if you disagree with this. DVD 05:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I mentioned during one of the FACs that in the sentence:

Designed to bear a heavy load without structural problems caused by its own weight, it has won awards for its use of sheet metal and is known for its aesthetics, especially a biomorphic one.

... I thought you should describe the aesthetic of the bridge, suggesting "biomorphic aesthetic" which was used. I had suggested "fluid aesthetic" as well which sounds better to me, and I'm thinking now "architect's signature aesthetic" would sound better than either. DVD 04:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments

[edit]

I have read the article, the GA review, the previous PRs and FACs and have some ideas. I can do a copyedit, but there are some questions I have on that. I think it is fairly close to being ready for FAC after a copyedit and cleaning up a few loose ends.

I also have some suggestions / questions on other issues - for example, It had a May 22, 2004 ribbon-cutting ceremony before its official opening, along with the rest of Millennium Park, on July 16, 2004.[25][1] It remained unnamed at the ribbon-cutting,[25] but before the July park opening, BP had paid $5 million for the bridge sponsorship and naming rights.[26] seems out of place in the Design section (since talking about opening the bridge before construction seems odd).

Clearly that text should be moved.

Anyway, how do you want to proceed? Should I do a full review (here or do you want to open a peer review), then a copyedit? Or should I just dive in and ask as I have questions? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I have thought about it some more and think it will mostly be a copyedit, but I would like to move several sentences from the Design section to the current Controversies section and make that a "Use and controversies" section instead. Is this OK? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is fine.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, it looks like you two are gearing up for another FAC nom. Just wanted to let you know I'd be up to help. If you need anything, let me know. --TorsodogTalk 20:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was going to work through it from start to finish, except I'll copyedit the lead last (once the rest of the article is ready to go). I know I'll have some questions, which I plan to post here. The first question I have is should there be some very brief introduction to the whole Millennium Park project at the start of the "Preliminary plans" section? Two or three sentences on Grant Park and how the land that became Millennium Park was a railyard, then a new park within Grant Park over a new parking garage. Not sure if it would make sense to also mention Daley Bicentennial Plaza? Feedback welcome, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am slow, but the copyedit to the Preliminary plans section is done. I added a brief introduction, tried to clarify things, and think I fixed a typo (Google gives many more hits for the "Pferdeturm USTRA Bridge in Hanover, Germany" not the "Pferdeturm USRTRA Bridge" - could you please check Gilfoyle's book?). Does this all look OK? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS should I link üstra as "Pferdeturm USTRA Bridge"? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PPS Would it be possible to get a photo that shows the support column better than File:Downtown Chicago Illinois Nov05 img 2552.jpg? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be able to take a pic of the support column. Images in this article are a concern for me though. It seems to me that there are far too many in this article, and many of them don't seem to be illustrating any specific point from the prose. They just seem to be there because they exist. If I grab a pic of the column, can we also do some overall editing on the article's image selection? --TorsodogTalk 18:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much - my thought was that the new column image would replace the one in the article. I agree that there are too many images in the article and feel that the multiple image templates often make the photo so small that the point illustrated can't be seen clearly. I also think the captions need work - the captions should relate the image to the article and its subject, but many of the captions seem be better at identifying the buildings in the background. Of the two pictures in the double image on the right in the Final design section, I would only keep the top File:Downtown Chicago Illinois Nov05 stc 2563.jpg and would make the caption describe how the bridge serves as a noise barrier here. I also note that the images seem to show there are lights in the interior walls of the bridge to illuminate the deck, but I am not sure the article mentions this. I planned to do the copyedit, then work on the images (moving text around within the article will mean the images will probably have to be moved too). I had also thought of cropping File:Millennium Park from Sears Tower.jpg to focus more on just the bridge. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Just to make clear, I think a new picture should be of Columbus Drive and the bridge crossing it, with the support column in the center - the current image has a tree over the support column but is otherwise not too bad. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I can get a really good, easy pic from upper Randolph St. --TorsodogTalk 19:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I am a slow copyeditor, so it is not a big rush. Do the changes I have made so far seem OK? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Current ref 12 is a bad link - I have not used Newsbank and am not sure how to find the correct link Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plates

[edit]

Sources disagree on the number of stainless steel plates in the bridge. There is a Tribune article that says The bridge materials include 9,800 stainless steel shingle plates, 2,000 rot-resistant Brazilian hardwood boards and 115,000 stainless steel screws.[31][26] (this is also sourced to Gilfoyle's book, but I do not have that). I was going to move this to construction anyway. Construction has a different number of plates, both based on this ASM webpage which says there are 10,400 standardized panels and 4,400 custom panels: Fabricating the 10,400 trapezoidal stainless steel panels took 1,000 shop hours and was done in 17 different shops.[33] and Because a specific horizontal line had to be maintained throughout the bridge, CMF (the sheet metal contractor) made 4,400 field-fabricated custom panels.

One way to deal with this owuld be to report both numbers in the article (While the Chicago Tribune reports the bridge has 9,800 stainless steel plates, this industry website (not sure what to call it) says there are 14,800...). Another way would be to just use the 14,800 number, but add a note to the Tribune reference "Note: This article also reports the bridge contains 9,800 stainless steel plates."

I am also pretty sure the current sentence on the 10,400 plates may be incorrect - the original sentence on the website is The fabrication of 10,400 stainless steel trapezoidal panels in 17 different shop fabricated configurations involved 1,000 shop hours. I read this as 17 different kinds of panels (configurations) made in one shop, not made in 17 shops. My solution here would be to use all or most of the original sentence as a direct quote in the article.

Feedback please, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to prefer to include both contradicting figures when something like this happens.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - seems more NPOV to include both from reliable sources. Will work on it next, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
BP Bridge column

I uploaded this from Flickr - what do you think of it as a photo of the support column? Torsodog if you have not already taken a photo of the column, is this OK (save you a trip?) I also saw on Flickr that there are lights set in the parapet walls. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless and until Torsodog comes up with better (likely until), that will do, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I've been taking so long with the pics, but I was just in Vegas for awhile. I'm back in Chi-town now though and I'll get the pics in the next couple of days! --TorsodogTalk 03:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much - just curious, what do you think of the new layout of images? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like it a lot. It is a lot less cluttered than it was previously. Nice work! --TorsodogTalk 04:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, I took a picture of the bridge today from Randolph. It shows the column prominently and shows the bridge from a new angle. Unfortunately, the lighting was pretty bad today. Feel free to edit the image as needed (I cropped and played with the levels a bit myself)! I might also try to take another photo on a better day in the near future. --TorsodogTalk 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks very nice, especially the cropped version, thanks! I notice the photo shows Columbus Drive is six lanes wide here, but the article says it is eight lanes wide. IS this only down by Monroe? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe south of the bridge there are lanes on both sides that go to the underground parking garage. Some of the other photos might show this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. the new image is from a great perspective.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetics

[edit]

A few things I noticed in this section that might be issues in FAC:

I will make my copyedits to Aesthetics next Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done and an image experiment

[edit]

I am done with the copyedit and also tried rearranging the images. I added the new images of the central post for now (in place of the old one) and cropped the view from Sears Tower image so the bridge was clearer in it. I removed a few images that did not seem that helpful to me. I think the description of which buildings are in the background should definitely be added to image file descriptions, but do not think they belong in the captions here. Revert if you don't like it and feel free to go to PR. I will be glad to help out with any requests in PR and FAC if you want. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

[edit]

Congratulations on (finally) passing FA scrutiny. The article looks great. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of my co-editors, Thank you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion notice on image

[edit]

Just a notice that one of the images is nominated for deletion on Commons - you are welcome to comment commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:BP Bridge facing NW.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But do people like it?

[edit]

Why nothing from critics? This article appears to be by, and for architects, not users. What is it like to cross this span? My impression is that the bridge is horribly inconvenient and stands out like an arrogant sore thumb. It seems to be twice as long as necessary, and stairs are eliminated in an effort to be esthetically pure. While those in wheelchairs might appreciate it, those with bad feet, like me, definitely won't. 68.111.71.197 (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be opinion. - Denimadept (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But a fawning article like this one isn't opinion? Include some criticism.68.111.71.197 (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I have to say I share 68.111.71.197's opinion, and have a similar (negative) opinion of all of Gehry's architecture, which I think is self-aggrandizing, impractical, ugly, and in general, highly unfriendly to pedestrians. But I had a tough time locating articles. Perhaps it's time for critics like you and I to write some op-eds in places where they'll get some mention. I find plenty of criticism of Gehry's work...is this article written about a different bridge: [2] ? It refers to milennium park but doesn't name the bridge...but it's critical of whatever bridge it's discussing, saying it's not practical (most pedestrians would want to cross at the curb because it goes too deep into the park). Cazort (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps both of you missed BP Pedestrian Bridge#Use and controversies. - Denimadept (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ahh silly me. Cazort (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda?

[edit]

This favourable article about a bridge appears on Wikipedia's front page at a time when the corporation that it's named for—BP—is currently under fire for creating a massive environmental catastrophe. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and has a say as to which articles they'd like to see featured on Wikipedia's front page, and it therefore possible that BP's public relations department had a hand in this, as if to say, "Sorry about the little spill in the Gulf, but hey—look at the nifty bridge we bought for Chi-town!" Morganfitzp (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks suspicious. Hive001 contact 17:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks suspicious, but it's not. --TorsodogTalk 17:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the rationale for having this star on the front page? This is more than suspicious, it seems pretty serious. I'm going to dig into this. Martinor (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, not quite as suspicious as originally perceived. Though the person suggesting the article for the main page might have some obscure motive (forget about it), what is _really_ astonishing is how _little activity_ and collective participation there is in the process of deciding upon an article to feature the main page. At the moment only a handful of users are choosing the most visible article on wikipedia worldwide. The discussion on the BP one is 7 - seven - comments long. This might be unfortunate. Martinor (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all Featured Articles (FAs) are eligible to appear on the Main Page once (and can appear almost always only one time ever). The star just means the article is an FA. The WP:TFAR page is to help the FA Director Raul654 as he schedules which articles will be on the Main Page, and when. The important factor here was the anniversary of the bridge opening, not the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. One of the TFAR commenters mentioned this. There was no ulterior motive or conspiracy - this was promoted to FA long before the tragedy in the Gulf. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on BP Pedestrian 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on BP Pedestrian 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:

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) 23:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on BP Pedestrian 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:

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) 06:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BP_Pedestrian_Bridge&oldid=1206407710"