Jump to content

Talk:Queensboro Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

"At the time of its construction, the Queensboro Bridge was the greatest cantilever bridge in the world." Greatest how? Tallest? Longest? --Roy 02:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Does anyone have the words "pedestrians and" covered by the 1st non-info box image? I'm running firefox @ 1360x1024. It goes away if I make my window smaller.

Infobox image

[edit]

I have replaced the prior image in the infobox. I don't think that the previous image (Image:Queensborobridge closeup.jpg) really said anything about the bridge at all; first and foremost, it was a picture of Midtown Manhattan—the bridge just happened to be there. It was not the prominent subject at all, and thus I don't feel that it was appropriate for this article. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 16:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


New Image

[edit]
Queensboro Bridge at night with the Roosevelt Island Tramway in view.

I replaced the image here with an aerial photo I took from 30 stories up. I wanted to show more of the structure and the approaches, as well as the scale of the bridge. Also, there was already a night-time photo in the article. This is the old one. -- --K72ndst 04:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Schools Near Queens bridge Are Long Island City High School, etc.

[edit]

The image Image:Woody allen manhattan.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Name

[edit]

This New York Times blog post seems to suggest that it won't be officially renamed the Ed Koch Bridge until next month, so perhaps the re-naming and the move are premature? 174.116.184.220 (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page should redirect to its old name, Queensboro Bridge. And here why: take a look at Joe DiMaggio Highway in Manhattan. The Wikipedia page for this road still redirects users to its old name, West Side Highway. Its unofficial, but it's still the popularly accepted name in this city.

Another example is Sixth Avenue in Manhattan, which is officially Avenue of the Americas but the main Wikipedia page for this road is filed under Sixth Avenue, because that's how most of thep ublic refers to this road. The same rule should apply to Queensboro Bridge. Nobody I know refers to it as the Ed Koch, except radio and television announcers. I live in Queens and most of my neighbors still call it the Queensboro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.8.210 (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retroactive?

[edit]

I notice an edit today which suggests that the name change is not retroactive. This makes sense to me. I hope no one will revert that edit. - Denimadept (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Strong consensus. See also WP:official names for an explanation of the policy. This reverses a previous undiscussed move 04:03, 24 March 2011‎ Sakib-1996 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (39 bytes) (+39)‎ . . (moved Queensboro Bridge to Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge: The Bridges name was officially changed to Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge from Queensboro Bridge.) which was in blatant violation of article naming policy. Andrewa (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge → Queensboro Bridge – Although Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge is the official name, it is rarely used; Queensboro Bridge is the more commonly used name. –sumone10154(talk) 19:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not move - Leave article under official name, with redirect from previous name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, your user page says you live in Boston, and the bridge was re-named after Koch fairly recently. How are you judging that it is "rarely used"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After further thought, I've reversed my opinion and support moving the article to the common name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Miscellaneous note: A time back I added in the IN POPULAR CULTURE section that the bridge was used as a backdrop in the opening credits of the film DEATH WISH as Paul Kersey and his wife return home from their vacation in Hawaii. However, this was removed. Not exactly sure why, considering I listed everything in the exact correct wiki format. Can this be re-listed in the article? - TC

It's not about the bridge, but about the movie. Put it in the article about the movie. - Denimadept (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed because it wasn't a significant appearance of the bridge - popcult entries should in some way be notable or significant. (I doubt it's significant enough to add to the Death Wish article either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's unfortunate, cause the bridge has a beautiful long drawn out shot in the opening when Hope Lange receives her title card. A really nice capture of the bridge from the early 1970's. But I won't argue. I'll just leave it at that. -TC


Image sizes

[edit]

The sizes of each image should be reduced or brought to their default sizes. This will eliminate problems, especially for small screens and for phones. Epic Genius (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preset image sizes are not a problem with phones, since the phones simply display them (roughly) at the size of the screen. BMK (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked at the article on my rather old model iPhone, and there's no problem with the images whatsoever. They displayed at the width of the phone's screen. BMK (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Checked it on an Android, same thing, no problem, so this is moot, I think. BMK (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, because the stacking of the two images on the right side in the transport section messed up the layout on my Android. Epic Genius (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger Elevator

[edit]

Circa 1966, I was employed at an NYU Medical School research facility on what was then called "Welfare Island". I got there by walking from Manhattan over the 59th Street Bridge to a large old elevator within one of the bridge towers down to the island. This article mentions an elevator for cars as well as a passenger elevator from the defunct train station but doesn't make clear that there was a working elevator used by hundreds of people daily in the mid 1960's. My hope is that someone with knowledge of the bridge and its history will amplify the article with respect to this time-period. My recollections include there being ruins of a hospital facility apparently from the turn of the 20th century. The Q102 bus was the other means of access to the island from the Queens side. AllenRazdow (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure of the date, the mid-60s? BMK (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind about that, I found two references to a passenger elevator operating as late as 1973. I've added that to the article. BMK (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queensboro 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) 16:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Queensboro 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) 04:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

[edit]

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs): In what way do you believe the current 2010 image to be superior? The composition is haphazardly cut-off at the bottom, it's tilted, etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A night image does not allow the reader to clearly see the bridges' superstructure. It's a nice image, but it's not appropriate for the lede image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of articles which are led by night images: Colosseum, Jefferson Memorial, Schwäbisch Hall, etc. In each case, while some architectural details may be more visible during the day, a night photo brings with it its own unique features which are not visible during the day, and the overall impact of the image is at least as strong as a day photo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said it's a nice image, as an image, and would be fine elsewhere in the article (if it wasn't already stuffed with pics), it's just not the best way to present what the bridge looks like. As for other articles, rememeber WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
I'm not married to the current picture, but there aren't a lot of contemporary images which would be appropriate. Maybe File:Queensboro Bridge from above.jpg, File:Queensboro Bridge, 2000.JPG, File:Queensboro Bridge 228.JPG, or File:Ed koch edited.jpg. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of sharpness/resolution, my image shows the superstructure in a far more detailed manner than the current one or any of the ones you have linked. The underside of the bridge is also a rather interesting architectural feature, and is not shown well on any of those either. So no matter how you look at it mine is more suitable: if you look at it thumbnail size, mine is a more aesthetically pleasing image that will draw readers to the article; if you blow it up to full-res, mine simply has more detail. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not compare the images at their full resolution, compare them as the reader is going to see them, at the size they're presented at in the infobox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I have said: "mine is a more aesthetically pleasing image that will draw readers to the article." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An image in the article can not draw readers to the article, because they have to be reading the article in the first place to see it. Your image is aesthetically pleasing, I agree, but the purpose of a lede image is not to be aesthetically pleasing, it is to present the subject in a clear and straightforward manner for the benefit of the reader. The place for aesthetically pleasing images is elsewhere in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I just realized that the image you're pushing for is literally your image. You've made your argument in favor of your image, and I have made mine against it. I think, considering your conflict of interest in regard to the image, that it would be best for you and I to allow other editors to have their say, including whether they think one of the other images I mentioned above might be preferable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image is often used by Google as the default Google-infobox image, so a good image absolutely will draw people to click on the corresponding Wikipedia link from Google, which is the primary external driver of Wikipedia traffic. And even at the small resolution of the infobox, you can see that the current image is a poor representation of the subject due to the tilt and bad composition. And it is absolutely valid to argue for one's own image in an article. But yes, we have said all we really need to say, so it'll be more productive to let others have a voice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree with your assessment of the current image, but, yes, let's let some air into the room and let others have their say.
BTW you have every reason to be pleased with your image, it's very good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the two, the current ("day") image is a better fit for the lead, primarily because it simply shows more of the bridge, including 3 of the 4 towers and all 3 spans. The bridge is unusual because it spans channel-island-channel. The "night" image looks more like it could be a single span bridge, so, although a nice photo, is not as good a representation of the topic. Station1 (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to agree with Station1, although I don't disagree that King of Hearts' pic is a nice one. Now if you don't mind, I have to try to get Amazon Assistant "aa" off my PC somehow. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with both DanTD and Station1. However, King of Hearts' image can be used illustratively if we decide to use it at all. The night image looks nice, but doesn't show as much of the bridge as the current daytime image does. epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I vote for the day image. Looking at it I can identify it as the Queensboro bridge a lot more quickly than the night image. The night image is more appealing, but very similar to single span bridge images. HugoHelp (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good use of this image at this point in the article. MrBill3 (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why -boro and not -borough?

[edit]

Why is it spelled -boro and not -borough? Is that slang? --2A00:C1A0:4888:3000:C00A:4D28:AA6C:8024 (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not slang, exactly, just an informal shortening of "borough" that's sometimes used. In this case, it's in the official name of the bridge. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkville

[edit]

I was under the impression that Yorkville started at 79th St. (its page says as much), but the lead claims the bridge connects to it. Should this be replaced with a reference to the Upper East Side instead? ShabShoral (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subheadings

[edit]

Today I converted the plain-text subheadings in the "In popular culture" section to actual wikitext subheadings, but Beyond My Ken reverted my edit with no explanation. Properly formatting the subheadings has clear advantages -- besides being consistent with general practice and style on Wikipedia, they enable the reader to navigate to the subsections from the TOC and to edit those individual subsections. It's also important for internal consistency -- all the other sections in the article have proper wikitext subheadings. BMK, what is the advantage of your way? Moreover, in the interests of civility and cooperation, I respectfully ask BMK that if you're going to revert my edits, you provide an explanation of why you think your preference is better. Thank you. --Albany NY (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The advantage is that it doesn't clutter up the TOC with unnecessary headings. Anyone wanting to see pop culture info can simply go to the main heading and scroll down, it's not an inconvenience. It's simply not necessary to have formal headings. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spires

[edit]

The towers used to have "spires" that fit into the "sockets" still visible today. They were removed some time in the '50s I think. I have found several pictures of them but I can't figure out how to upload them. TRIKER1 (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subway lines not listed

[edit]

The article lists current bus service in detail, but not which subway lines travel over the bridge. Odd. 2603:7000:2444:A00:A004:914F:15F9:D719 (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No subway lines travel over the bridge right now, and none ever have. The bridge did have elevated tracks, but they were removed eight decades ago. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 16:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Seawolf35 (talk · contribs) 14:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to just dump my thoughts below as I read through and spot check so I don't forget what I want to point out. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 14:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. 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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    -It seems technical in some places, but given the subject matter that seems necessary.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    -Illustrated well!
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    -Very well written, just a few minor nitpicks!

Detailed Comments

[edit]
  • Under "Post unification approval", A state assemblyman proposed a bill in January 1900 to appoint commissioners for a bridge or tunnel between Manhattan and Queens. - I presume you could mention who that assemblyman was to be consistent with the rest of the article.
  • Under "Opening and 1910s", the first sentence about people applying to jump off the bridge seems out of place. There seems to be no mention of the bride jumping in the rest of the article. Maybe move the sentence or remove it?
  • Under "Progress on superstructure and approaches", ...when disgruntled workers tried to dynamite the Blackwell's Island span. "Tried to dynamite" seems a bit awkward, most people associate dynamite with the explosive. Maybe change it to something like ...when disgruntled workers tried to destroy the Blackwell's Island span with dynamite.
  • MOS:OVERLINK - Since Ed Koch is linked in the 3rd paragraph of the lead it probably doesn't need to be be linked again in the 2nd paragraph under "Name".
  • Under "Spans", The decks themselves were designed to carry as much as 16,000 pounds per foot (24,000 kg/m) of bridge. WP:YOUDONTSAY, I believe the reader will have figured out that this article is about a bridge by now. They don't need to be told that the decks on a bridge hold bridge.
  • Under "Completion", The city refused to pay Pennsylvania Steel until 1912, when a judge forced the city to do so.. Consider using "them" with the second occurrence of "the city."
Thanks for the comments. I've addressed all of the issues you raised, and I removed the info about jumpers (I couldn't find anything else about that). Epicgenius (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 04:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Queensboro Bridge
Queensboro Bridge
Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 647 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Primary hook approved. – PeeJay 11:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queensboro_Bridge&oldid=1217710347"