Jump to content

Talk:Golden Gate Bridge/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2


Disputed: Most photographed?

What is with the need to arbitrarily decide that the Golden Gate Bridge is "the most photographed bridge in the world". It's not like anyone dilligently counts and records the number of photographs that are taken of it, or indeed any other bridge. Citing as a reference a Frommers' guide which makes the same romantic-but-unsubstantiated claim (with no basis for it) doesn't make it the truth. Perhaps London's Tower Bridge is more photographed, or maybe the Brooklyn Bridge in New York. No-one knows... so why put it in the article? mjlodge 15:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason that we include the atomic weight of Helium in its article; facts are interesting things to include in articles. Is this a fact with a lot of deeply researched, heavily corss-referenced, peer-reviewed literary articles and other proof behind it? No. But it does seem to garner some good support, even if it's not from you. Frommer's, after all, is a reputable publisher of tourist guidebooks and they probably have a more-stringent editorial process than allowing anybody to come in and edit and/or comment-upon the article. Why can't you accept what they say? And if you have another bridge in mind, state your case and the Wiki community can evaluate it.


Atlant 16:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I can't accept it because of the difference between fact and opinion. The atomic weight of helium is a physical fact measurable to a given degree of accuracy and verifiable by anyone else who cares to repeat the same experiment(s). Whether or not the Golden Gate Bridge is the most photographed in the world is not even something that is measured, never mind a measurement that is accurate, verifyable or repeatable. The Frommers' quote is editorial opinion -- totally fine for a travel guide, which deals in the romance of travel as much as facts such as the details of train schedules, but this is an encyclopedia article. My opinion is that the Golden Gate Bridge is the most beautiful bridge in the world, and yours is that it's the most photographed. Both are equally unqualified editorial opinion inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry.
mjlodge 01:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How do you know Frommers doesn't have data? Do you suppose that camera/film companies *MIGHT* keep track of what people are shooting pictures of, if only through the occasional marketing survey? Perhaps Frommers has asked people what they take pictures of when they travel. Maybe it's based on how many rolls of film are sold at the souvenir shops near each bridge. Maybe the San Francisco department of tourism sent someone out to count people with cameras. Maybe it's based on a survey of http://images.google.com/. Just because you (and yes, I admit it, I) don't have the data at hand doesn't mean it ain't true. And given the Frommers citation, I think you should accept it.
Atlant 13:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Clearly, you have no idea of what "fact" means, nor what a supporting reference is. You're just guessing and making baseless assertions. There is no way to count the number of photos taken of a public structure, and your suggestions don't provide support for your opinion. "Most photographed" is simply an opinion, and therefore will be removed.
mjlodge 02:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ah, reversion to insults as a method of defending your position. Sorry, but that isn't a fact either. I'll; stand by Frommer's professional opinion as being good enough. I'd also welcome input from other editors since you seem to be the only one with criticisms of this point.
Atlant 12:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This assertion seems to be an article of faith for you -- for whatever reason -- so explaining a logical argument may be a waste of my time as blind faith, by definition, can't be swayed by rational argument. But here goes: the following is what makes a logical argument to back up your assertion:
1) The burden of proof is on you to show that the Golden Gate Bridge is the most photographed. Making an assertion and then effectively saying "prove me wrong" doesn't make the assertion true (because it says nothing about the original assertion)
2) You must not only come up with some measurement of the number of photographs taken of the bridge with known accuracy, but you must also show that the number is larger than any other bridge. The burden of proof is actually higher than that for the atomic weight of Helium, because you not only need a measurement, you need to be able to compare it to many other measurements.
3) Repetition of the same assertion is not a logical argument. The Internet is full of this, but many people repeating the same thing does not make that thing true. In the rational world, logical argument is the only way to show something is true. A reference to a valid logical argument is what you need -- not a reference to a repeat of the same assertion. Frommers is a reputable travel guide, I agree, but they don't write encyclopedias -- they write travel editorial. Show us a reference from a peer-reviewed encyclopedia for a better argument. See Wiki article on citing authoritative sources.
4) There must be some measurement of some kind for the number of photographs taken, with a *known* margin of error for the number of photographs. You need this for two reasons. The first one is so that you have a number with some known degree of confidence, and the second is...
5) There must be a way to do a valid comparison. So there must be comparable measurements for every other contending bridge in the world with a known margin of error. The measurement methodology does not have to be the same (though that would be best), but you do need to know the margin of error in order to be able to do a valid comparison.
6) There only needs to be one counter-example to render a proof invalid. For example, I live in San Francisco and so even though the burden is on you to show that any of your suggested measurement methodologies are authoritative and comparable, I did a little research. The fact is that there are no "camera police" on the bridge asking people if they have a camera and how many photos they have taken. And even if there were, they could not count the people taking photos of the bridge from afar, or on tour buses, or... you get the picture (pardon the pun). They do count the number of cars and cyclists who use the bridge, though -- perhaps these are better candidate figures for the article.
7) Finally, and this is a nuance but is perhaps important -- clearly, there is some number of photographs taken of the bridge -- and every other bridge world-wide -- each year. But you don't know what it is, nor can you cite anyone else who has figured it out *and* done the comparison. So it could be that the Golden Gate Bridge is the most photographed -- but we just don't know.
The strength and weakness of Wikis is that anyone can make edits, so of course I cannot stop your "faith-based initiative". It's just like the France page, which seems to get vandalized at least once a day -- but in the end is always restored to health. If you like edit wars, head on over to the Opus Dei page instead...
mjlodge 17:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You're the one on the attack. Why don't YOU call Frommer's and ask them where their statistic comes from?
By the way, here's another claim in another article for you to attack:
Mount Monadnock has long been described as the second-most-climbed mountain in the world (after Mount Fuji in Japan). Since 1990, it has been suggested that so many of Fuji's climbers have shifted to newly available public transportation for that ascent, that Monadnock's annual total of foot traffic now exceeds Fuji's.
So far as I know, there's no tollbooth at the base of either mountain, so they probably don't have the actual count of climbers accurate to five or six significant figures.
My point, of course, is that even encyclopedias accept these sorts of statements under the color of "generally recognized to be credible", and either of us could find hundreds of such examples whether here in Wikipedia or in a "real" encyclopedia. I don't understand why you've got such a bee in your bonnet about this statement (most-photographed), ESPECIALLY because it is backed-up by a citation to a company that has a pretty-good reputation in assessing such things.
Atlant 17:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't like it because it degrades the quality of the article and despite all my attempts, you simply refuse to engage in any form of rational debate or form a logical argument for your edit. This cannot make for a good quality Wikipedia. I don't feel sorry for wanting to improve the quality of the Wikipedia -- but I am sorry you feel this is somehow inappropriate or constitutes a "bee in my bonnet". If I supported your position, would you be ticking me off for having a bee in my bonnet about supporting you?
Re: Frommers' reputation in assessing "most photographed" of anything. Yet another baseless assertion -- what is your basis for believing this?
Re: Mount Fuji. Also has no basis for saying "most climbed". Two wrongs don't make a right.
If everyone continues to make edits that are not backed by facts or logical argument, the quality of the Wikipedia degrades. When I showed that your original analogy was not only invalid but shed some light on why your edit is unsubstantiated, you discarded it and never mentioned it again. So the moment your "evidence" fails to support your position, you ignore it and move on. What article is next for the same treatment? George Clooney (or Brad Pitt, or <insert celeb here>) as the Most Photographed Celebrity? Ground Zero as the Most Photographed Spot In America? Mount Fuji as the Most Photographed Mountain In Japan? The Buddha staute on Po Lin island as the Most Photographed Outdoor Bronze Statue Of Buddha In Asia?
mjlodge 17:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
When I showed that your original analogy was not only invalid but shed some light on why your edit is unsubstantiated, you discarded it and never mentioned it again.
You showed nothing of the sort. I offered you several ways to prove or disprove my claim and you've done none of them.
Atlant 18:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I came to this from peer review and I'll risk pouring rocket fuel on the fire.

  1. it is not the most photographed bridge [1], that title belongs to the Forth rail bridge.
  2. it is not the most beautiful bridge, that title belongs to a small bridge high in the French Alps which is a secret known only to a few locals.
  3. etc.
  4. Frommers really does state what it states even though it's wrong.

Neutral point of view means it's perfectly okay to state incorrect facts, as long as we are clear about the source of those claims. This means that it doesn't matter if it's a true fact; what matters is that someone important claims it is a fact. You can leave this in.

Oh, and you should visit Venice one day. Mozzerati 20:12, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Tee hee :-) Re: Vencie -- yup, or Florence, for that matter. Cheers mjlodge 03:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and you should visit Venice one day.

I don't know about the other contributors to this thread, but...

I have been to Venice! Nice place. But I have more pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge. :-)

Atlant 10:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ I asked my cat and she is absolutely sure this is true.

Images

Comments Prior to May 2006

File:Stamp-ctc-golden-gate-bridge.jpg
The Golden Gate Bridge was built during the 1930s

Well, it might be public domain, but why should we make U.S. taxpayers pay for the bandwidth?

Revenge for tearing up the Kyoto agreement?

Please e-mail the image to XXXXXX and have him upload it. Apparently, he knows how and where to do so. --LMS

OK. I've sent him the information (rather than send a huge unsolicited binary email) - GWO

Would anyone mind if added the "Golden Gate Bridge by night" image to the article? Picturewise the GGB is underrepresented in comparison to the Bay Bridge ;-) --Dschwen 19:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aparently no one did, so be it. (I now realize the the senselessness of the posting, so much for being bold ;-) ) --Dschwen 13:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The only think I'd suggest is that you push the photo over to the right-hand column. This seems to be more "Wiki-standard" and it avoids future problems when someone inserts/moves a text header that would interfere with a photo that is left-aligned.
Atlant 14:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the picture Image:Golden Gate Bridge from underneath.jpg because it doesn't seem to really add anything to the article. OTOH, looking at the expanded version, I could be wrong... --Jason McHuff 01:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

So, I added it back, since it does show the massiveness of it. --Jason McHuff 01:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added in an image I took from Fort Mason in April 2005, showing the bridge against a glorious golden sunset. I thought it was kind of appropriate for the suicide section to show a "golden end". I also changed the caption of one of the wide shots, which wrongly identified it as being "photographed from the Presidio". Clearly it is photographed from Fort Mason and the roofs of the wharves are clearly visible. See Fort Mason for a wider view. --Jumbo 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

May 2006

This article is way too picture-heavy. I feel like several pictures not directly related to the article's contents can be moved to the Photos section at the end of the article. Stack 17:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest to remove pictures not directly related to the article's contents entirely from the article. Furthermore Galleries like in the Photos section are discouraged (see WP:NOT). The place for galleries is commons. --Dschwen 20:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
See a few lines above as to why I originally put the "golden sunset" photograph in the suicide section. This bridge is one of the most photographed in the world and a reader is going to expect a lot of photographs, as compared to (say) the Hercilio Luz Bridge. Also see the section on the bridge in popular culture. We're not talking about any bridge here. --Jumbo 01:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
As stated on SuperJumbo's user page: Please refrain from making changes which go against apparent consensus. In this article, the picture was removed because it is one of the many which need not be in the article. Collections of pictures belong on Commons [[1]]. In addition, putting that picture in the Suicides section is extremely morbid, and, to me, violates the NPOV policy. Please wait until an agreement is come to on this page. Stack 06:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The "golden sunset" photograph was placed in the Suicides section in early January. At some later date it was moved into the first section. It has been an uncontested part of the article for several months. I see no sudden consensus in the past few days for its removal. It is a striking image, illustrating the gold in "Golden Gate" very well. Unilaterally removing this image before coming to an agreement on this page seems to be rather unmannerly. If we want to cull the photographs on the page (and I see no reason why we should) then let us list all the photographs and see if we can work out the ones with most support for remaining in the article. In fact, out of all the editors who have contributed to this article, I see only two newcomers in favour of reducing the number of images. This is hardly a consensus. --Jumbo 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Newcomer?! This wouldn't make my opinion less important. So check your facts before launching ad hominems. --Dschwen 06:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected. My point remains. If you want to make contested changes, please try to find a consensus before acting. This is good wikimanners. --Jumbo 06:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
No, seriously, it is not good wikimanners. Not each and every edit has to be discussed on the article talk-page. And how can I know beforehand whether an edit is going to be contested? Anyway, we are discussing now (quite off-topic until now). The sunset picture does not add significantly to the article, the bridge is a dark shadow and we all know how a sunset looks like. Furthermore its placement in the suicides section is off topic (and one might argue tasteless as well). Images should not be means to prettify an article, but they should contribute encyclopedically. Also Wikipedia is WP:NOT a gallery, too many images just clutter the page and make it harder to read for low-badwidth users. --Dschwen 12:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
SuperJumbo, can you please explain why you feel the image is appropriate? Can you understand that many people will find it somewhat morbid, and perhaps offensive? Stack 02:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
End of life, end of day. Bridge and sunset. The connection is obvious. Perhaps we should cut the entire section from the article if it bothers people. Not that anybody has complained. I think if it were morbid and offensive we'd be getting a lot more discussion. Doesn't seem to be a problem. --Jumbo 04:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is really poetic (seriously), but since we are trying to write an encyclopedia I'd prefer to have pictures that show more of the bridge and its specific features (like the suicide-phone picture). Apart from the end-of-life/day allegory the picture does not add substantially to the article. --Dschwen 06:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You have made your own personal feelings plain. In this community, you are certainly entitled to this. --Jumbo 06:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
At this point, since only the three of us have been discussing this (hardly a good enough number to have a relevant discussion, apparently), I'm requesting additional discussion on this issue. Stack 00:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Update: Request for Comment made here. Stack 00:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Responded to request for comment. Moved image to photos section because the image did not DIRECTLY illustrate the suicide section (note: this is not an invitation to photograph a jumper. Please leave this section with just the callbox photo). --M@rēino 15:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Moved "golden" image back to lead section, where it has been since February. I have adjusted the caption to underscore the direct relevance. --Jumbo 19:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Whether it has been there since february or not is not really relevant. The picture is below the standard. It shows half the bridge, and that half only as a silouette. I has an ugly foreground and two branches sticking in from the side. It brings no additional value to the article. Sorry for beeing so blunt, but subtlety apparently does not cut it. Other people have already moved the picture down into the gallery section. What you are doing here is bordeline revert war! --Dschwen 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Please calm down. I have never thought that you were being subtle. Quite the reverse in fact. The photograph is a free one illustrating the gold of the Golden Gate. No photograph of the bridge after sundown is going to show more than a silhouette. It is not included in the article to show every nut and bolt in the structure. It is a beautiful photograph of a beautiful bridge. In this wikicommunity, the fact that it has been in the lead section since February after having been in other sections is quite relevant: the only consensus - one you apparently agree with, unless you were being "subtle" - is that it should be included in the article. The matter of where it is best placed is the only matter of minor disagreement. And, on a technical point, no 2D photograph is going to show more than half of the bridge. I would have that that went without saying. --Jumbo 22:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
SuperJumbo, please take a breather and read the Three-revert rule. Stack 04:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Reposting here for posterity, from my talk page: "I'm having a hard time reading your contribution as anything other than provocative. Have I missed something? Please explain. --Jumbo 06:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)"
I posted that link because you have made a large number of reverts in this dispute. This does not bode well for your credibility in the dispute. The 3RR rule exists for a reason. Stack 19:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
A dispute? Is that what it is? I'm well aware of the 3RR rule, and nobody here has come close to three reverts in 24 hours, which is a good sign. I wish a few more people would discuss matters and gain a consensus before taking action.
I don't think anybody need worry about my credibility. I'm up front about what I think. I think the picture is a beautiful photograph of a beautiful bridge, putting the gold into the Golden Gate in a way that no other free image does. Find a better sunset photograph that we can use, and I'll happily support that one. The idea is to improve the quality of the article for our readers. I accept that another editor is squeamish about a "golden end" image being used in the suicides section, so I moved it back to the lead section.
My personal feeling is that the article should be image-heavy. It's a widely photographed bridge and there are a lot of different angles and views and "moods" that should be represented. Cutting the photographs down to three or four is inappropriate, in my eyes, and is something that should be discussed and consensus gained before taking action. I would hope that you agree with what is simple wikimanners. --Jumbo 22:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, it seems we're debating two different things. Since the placement of the aforementioned image seems to no longer be an issue, then as I understand it the current discussion is on the volume of pictures in the article. I actually agree that this particular article should have several pictures, and certainly more than the average article. However, I believe its current incarnation contains too many, and thus some should be moved elsewhere. We do have to consider what Wikipedia is not, even if it doesn't directly support our opinions in this matter. Stack 15:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Paintwork and nighttime pano

Here is another suggestion: Image:Golden_Gate_Bridge_2003.jpg would be better suited to illustrate the paintwork section. Image:Ggb03162006a.jpg could then be moved to the photo section, where it would complement this daytime pano. Any opinions? Oh, and Image:108972157 l.jpg should be removed from the gallery, it has extremely low quality and is kind of redundant. --Dschwen 15:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Longest?

I believe the comments about when Golden Gate wasn't the longest bridge is wrong. I've notified the original author User talk:MichaelJanich. Samw 13:27 18 May 2003 (UTC)

The suspension bridge article lists the fifteen longest, and the Golden Gate is ranked seventh. The oldest of the six surpassing it was built in 1964. I will now change this article to conform to that one.

I'm pretty sure, however, that it had the tallest suspension towers until 2000 or thereabouts, when it was bested in that regard by a bridge in China.

It's not that it's the longest suspension bridge, as it never was. The SF-Oakland Bay Bridge's suspension section is longer and older than the Golden Gate Brigde. The GGB was the longest single span suspension bridge at that time.Gentgeen 19:26, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Statics prove Golden Gate not the longest, info taken from sats on State Of Michigan, providing proof, IE: The Mackinac Bridge is currently the third longest suspension bridge in the world. In 1998, the Akashi Kaikyo Bridge in Japan became the longest with a total suspension of 12,826 feet. The Great Belt Bridge in Halsskov-Sprogoe, Denmark, which also opened in 1998, is the second longest suspension bridge in the world with a total suspension of 8,921 feet. The Mackinac Bridge is the longest suspension bridge in the western hemisphere. The total length of the Mackinac Bridge is 26,372 feet. The length of the suspension bridge (including anchorages) is 8,614 feet. The length from cable bent pier to cable bent pier is 7,400 feet. Length of main span (between towers) is 3,800 feet.Aalar

A flawed entry

This entry is flaw

Removed this:

  • William Gibson's cyberpunk/science fiction Bridge Trilogy is named for the Golden Gate Bridge, as many scenes take place on the earth-quake broken bridge that has been colonized by squatters.

since the bridge in the novels is the San_Francisco-Oakland_Bay_Bridge.

Constantly being painted/fading paint

I have no source for this, except remembering reading this, perhaps someone can put their hand on it. The GGB is not continuously painted from one end to the other on a yearly basis, nor does it need repainting because of fading pigments, but mostly needs to be painted at certain points that rust most easily. BLP 06:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ppl dying while building

Anyone have a count of how many lives were lost during construction? --Duemellon 14:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Number of Lanes

Article: On weekday mornings, traffic flows mostly southbound into the city, so four of the six lanes run southbound. Conversely, on weekday afternoons, three lanes run northbound.

In the afternoon, isn't the bridge four lanes northbound? I don't want to change the article because I'm not too sure myself. Also, why is this in the history section anyway? Soltras 17:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Fog

This article needs a picture of the bridge when the fog is rolling in. Preferably with the towers peeking through the fog bank. That is one of the more distinguishing and signature views of this bridge. i am imagining something along the lines of the following two picture [2] [3] David D. (Talk) 08:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Maintenance and definition

The Golden Gate Bridge is the only toll bridge in the San Francisco Bay Area not maintained by the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), but by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (as already stated in the infobox). This is even though U.S. Highway 101 and California State Route 1 traverse across the bridge, in actuality, the highways are discontinued between the ends of the bridge. Even more, Route 1 is not even legislatively defined where it runs concurrent with Highway 101, as are all state highways that run concurrently with U.S. and Interstate highways in California. Thus, the highways are there by signage only. --Geopgeop 11:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Speed limits

This article states that the speed limit was lowered from 55 to 45 mph in October 1983. Yet I have on my office wall some old photos which my dad says were given to him while we were living in the Bay Area (we left in December of that year). One of the photos shows a distinct "45" on the roadway. So...was the person who added the speed limit data wrong, or my dad? Perhaps the photos were given to him as a parting gift when he left his Bay Area job, or maybe he got them later. Any comments?

Failed GA

References is the main reason on why I failed the article, also not a big fan of the gallery section, should be on commons --Jaranda wat's sup 21:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Jump for Life in place of a suicide barrier?

Is Jump for Life really an alternative to a suicide barrier by any means? Stack 02:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Given no other opinions, I am going to go ahead and reword the part of the article referencing Jump for Life. This isn't an alternative to a suicide barrier, but is, rather, a way to discourage suicides which use the bridge. Stack 03:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Measurements

The height of 746 ft has been incorrectly converted to 230 m; the correct figure is 227 m. Also, some of the conversions have been done with ridiculous accuracy: span of 4,200 ft to 1,280.16 m for example (a persumed 1 ft accuracy would justify a one-decimal metric conversion; however, it's customary to list bridge lengths with 1 m accuracy). The bridge's home page would likely be the best source for these statistics; notice that it has a more accurate total length of 8,981 ft (2,737 m) – the 1.7 mi given here equals 8,976 ft. Anshelm '77

Seismic Retrofit

There's a major seismic retrofit project that isn't mentioned in this article. It's a huge deal for the bridge, very important for the bridge's health, very long term and super expensive. The project will increase the bridge's ability to withstand earthquakes from about 7.0 to 8.0 on the Richter scale... I think. I'm not sure how to eloquently phrase things for Wikipedia, nor do I know how in depth one would want to take this topic, but it's all summed up here: [4] for anyone who wants to tackle it.

happy 69th birthday, bridge.

Visibility

Is it true that the Golden Gate Bridge is visible from (outer) space, or even the International Space Station? User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 14:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

People who jumped twice

At least one other person has jumped twice...Paul Alarab. Do a google search for the article "Jumpers" published in the New Yorker a few years ago. This is sort of right. The first time he jumped was to commit suicide. The second time, he was out on the steel beam, connected to the railing, but leaning out. He was there to protest going to war in Iraq. The police talked him in, and as he stood upright on the beam, he unhooked himself, slipped, and fell--apparently not a suicide. He survived.

Golden Gate tower?

I noticed that in the top right it says, "Golden Gate tower." Is there a reason it doesn't say "Golden Gate Bridge"? The golden gata alta geht von deutsch nach englisch alta abchen

Fiction - Games - Stunt Island

Whoever erased Stunt Island, claiming unsourced edit, might just as well erase all games from the list. Otherwise, please stay put. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.136.128.14 (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

The In fiction and film section is excessively large. I support the cleanup suggested above, leaving only the most notable instances, supported by sources independent of the work itself. ✤ JonHarder talk 13:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Concur. Unless sources can be provided for any or all, the list begins to approach original research. Morenooso 00:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
To expand on my "most notable instances" above, works that have the bridge in the background or mention the bridge don't belong here, no matter how well they are sourced. The bridge needs to be integral to the plot. The current list is mostly trivia. ✤ JonHarder talk 01:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me say that GTA: San Andreas and Stunt Island are both games where the bridge is an active part of the game. In GTA, even though you can cross the river by air (helicopter or plane) or swimming, the gameplay suggests you drive because it's much easier to steal a car (they're everywhere) and takes less time to cross than swimming. In Stunt Island, one of the stunts requires you to land a plane on the bridge. Actually, they didn't even rename the bridge in SI. 193.136.128.14 01:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like something that is more relevant and approrpiate for the game articles than to this article. The bridge may be important to the game, but the game is not important to (understanding) the bridge. It isn't a symmetric relationship and I don't think it needs to be mentioned here. ✤ JonHarder talk 00:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right, but then that applies to many other references there, other than games. I suggest creating a new article about fiction references, done in many other cases like this. Usually, these lists are "reverse lists" that help to find what's related with what, and are not (generally) useful in encyclopedic content. 193.136.128.14 19:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Concur with JonHarder talk. Ronbo76 01:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Atmospheric optics

Before an edit war breaks out here, let's talk about this with all editors. Should this section even be included in the article? It has almost next to nothing to do with the article's subject. Roguegeek (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the amount and size of the images is completely messing with the formatting of the entire article now. Roguegeek (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Too many images, most are "artsy" and do not represent the subject very well. A few are quite nice, maybe use one of the more striking images that is clearly the GGB in the Aesthetics section, and include a sentence about it in the prose. The entire section is a non sequitur in content and style, and should not be present. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 05:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a solar coronae or the Spectre of the Brocken, Atropos235? How many fog shadows or/and a fogbows have you seen, Atropos235? If you have, you should have known how they look, and if have not why you call the images "artsy"? But whatever. I really do not care any more. I saw and photographed the phenomenas and you could go ahead and delete the section. I only know that many people are interested in seeing the phenomenas, but they do not know where and when to look for them and thanks to you they never will.--Mbz1 05:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

If one GOOGLE Golden Gate Bridge, one finds may thousands of images and information, but one will not find any similar information or any similar images like the ones that were displayed in the paragraph before Roguegeek removed them as SPAM??? My goal in placing the images at GGB page were to show one more amazing side of Golden Gate Bridge. I strongly believe that the images are unique, interesting and very educational. --Mbz1 12:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Charles A. Ellis

I thought this article [5] may be interest to those maintaining this article. --Gopherbone 17:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This section seems rather silly. You could add every representation of the bridge in any TV show or movie that was set in San Francisco. It should be eliminated or reduced to only particular scenes set on or about the bridge itself. Happywaffle (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Design Section

Final paragraph of the Design section repeats information from the first paragraph(s) regarding Charles Ellis, and presents it as though it had not been brought up previously. Erendwyn (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC) The original rivets, which were corroding, have been replaced by threaded fastners.OldBlindDog (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ferry service?

Why is there a decent-sized chunk-o-text about the ferry service in the history of the Golden Gate Bridge? It might be worth a passing mention, but only a mention... this article *is* about the bridge and not a history of SF bay crossings, right? Any objections if I remove it? WikiLimey (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite article

I'm considering rewriting the article soon (next few days, when I have a chance) to incorporate some the still-unimplemented 2005 peer review comments, and to improve organization. So hang on to your hats! And please suggest anything you think needs attention.Wikidemo 00:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I started by renaming, blocking, and arranging major sections. It's clear that some of the information is out of place and does not logically flow, or is contradictory, so some of the info will be have to moved among sections. I'll do that soon. This also makes the holes in the coverage more obvious. There's little discussion of the settings, finance/economics, management, or physical description of the bridge. Although trivia should be discouraged it might be worthwhile to describe how the bridge affects culture in San Francisco, how it is perceived in the world, tourism, etc. This all messes up the image placement - the images will have to be moved around, but maybe later once the overall text has settled. Wikidemo 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This seems like a good opportunity to archive this page. ☑ SamuelWantman 03:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I might need to see if there are any strong concerns there but I can just go back in the history. I'm taking an overnight break now but I'll be tidying up afterwards. In some cases it gets a little worse before it gets better, e.g. my preliminary sections on the bridge structure and specifications. Those need to be filled out, but we really ought to have some prose description beyond the infobox of the bridge's basic structure. Wikidemo 04:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The Art section has some peacock language -- and the puzzling assertion that the bridge is more beautiful in Oct.-Nov.? Why? Unimaginative Username 06:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This might be because October and November is a period when fog is less likely to obscure the bridge. It is always prettier when you can actually see it. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Raises the interesting philosophical question: If a beautiful woman walks through a forest where no one can see her, is she not beautiful? ok, j/k -- but unless the fog is there 24/7 the other ten months of the year (it isn't; been there, done that), the assertion isn't necessarily true. Your explanation makes sense, but would zero-knowledge readers understand that? Regards, Unimaginative Username 06:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the art section is fluffly. Whether true or not it is just praise, opinion, and judgment, not encyclopedic stuff. If it's still there when I get to it I'll try to replace it with something more authoritative and sourced. If you find any good sources discussing that, please do add some material there. Wikidemo 10:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks -- that's what I was trying to say in my OP on the topic. Unimaginative Username 06:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How come?

There are so many petty vandals all of a sudden? Do vandals have a watch list? BTW, I've just expanded the part of the history section, though I still need to add more detail, fact-checking, and sources to the design and construction parts. After that I'll be going through some other sections one by one and probably adding a couple. So if anyone things I'm going about it wrong or need some pointers, now is the time. I'm not good enough to bring an article to featured article status all by myself but maybe this can be a good article (GA) again, and a more complete resource for the world to know about the bridge.Wikidemo 18:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Golden Gate may be the second longest suspension bridge. The Mackinaw Bridge in Michigan takes the cake for the longest in the Western Hemisphere! 165.20.104.30 17:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Golden Gate has the second longest suspension bridge span in the US. The length of the longest span is the customary way to rank suspension bridges. This should be made clear by using the term suspension bridge span whenever discussing ranking. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Picture

A picture in the Aesthetics section is overlaying some text. Does anyone know how to fix this? SkipSmith (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I took a shot at a fix. The problem was the pictures on the left and right are placed on the same line, and the picture on the right was pushed down past the start of the section by the larger picture above it, pushing down the picture on the left over some text. I moved the picture on the left down to the next paragraph. SkipSmith (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Just finished some pretty extensive style fixes with the layout. The major problems, like text trapping, are fixed. Also did a lot of other style fixes which dealt with things like citation fixes, spacing, and what not. Roguegeek (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Repeated vandalsim

I'm getting pretty sick of the repeated vandalism of this page by IP-only editors. For that reason I requested and was granted a five day semi-protection status for the page which stops anonymous editors changing the page. This isn't an ideal solution but five days peace and quiet from the constant anti-vandal work on this page might be worth it. When the protected period expires it will be interesting to see if vandalism returns to previous levels. If it does then I'd appreciate other editors support in requesting protection again. --TimTay (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Interfearence with the Southern Pacific Railroad

Southern Pacific Railroad was interfering with the area that they were using to build the bridge. So they had to delay the process, in which they then had to go to get files allow them the land.

Slight physics discrepency

In the suicide section, it states that the person would be going approximately 75 mi/h or 121 km/h when they hit the water after falling for approximately 4 seconds from a 260 ft (79.25 m) drop. Using basic physics, the 4 seconds time is easily verifiable by the equation x = v0t + (gt2)/2, where x is the distance, v0 is the initial velocity, g is acceleration on Earth for a free falling body, and t is time (comes out to about 4.02 seconds). However, the speed is off by the formula v = v0 + gt. The initial velocity is 0, making it v = gt. Plugging in the known 4.02 seconds for t and 9.8 m/s2 for g, this comes out to about 39.41 m/s, which is equal to 141.88 km/h, or approximately 88 mi/h (87.95 mi/h).--十八 06:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Air resistance. That's probably why it is 121 km/h rather than 141.88 km/h. 140.247.41.252 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that air resistance would slow you down that much. Read Terminal velocity. - SCgatorFan (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
It depends what you are wearing. Also, air resistance tends to be roughly proportional to the square of speed. Perhaps we should give a range of speeds. Dbfirs 18:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Air resistance for a human body in air can't noticeably slow down the person at a 80 meter freefall. The correct speed should be 142 km/h. Even if the 121 km/h figure is correct, that gives a duration of 4.7 s, give or take, which is in turn rounded to five seconds. Thus, either way, the current figures in the article are incorrect. Admiral Norton (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that air resistance would not make a big difference in most circumstances, so the given figure was too small. Would you agree on "up to 140 km/mh" ? I note that the incorrect figure has been changed now. Dbfirs 17:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that would suffice. Admiral Norton (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The motion is governed by the Stokes equation. It is a complicated equation, because it depends on the actual shape of the falling object (e.g. a person with a parachute drops slower). Generally speaking, the acceleration is not constant (as assumed by the above equations), but the velocity becomes constant after some time as soon as the air resistance becomes just as strong as the gravity force. I don't have actual numbers but I suspect that air resistance can not be neglected. At nearly 100 mph the air resistance is strong. Rbakels (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

History of the Name

The current revision gives an unsatisfying account of the name "Golden Gate Bridge". http://goldengatebridge.org/research/facts.php#Name states: "The Golden Gate Strait is the entrance to the San Francisco Bay from the Pacific Ocean. The strait is approximately three-miles long by one-mile wide with currents ranging from 4.5 to 7.5 knots. It is generally accepted that the strait was named "Chrysopylae", or Golden Gate, by John C. Fremont, Captain, topographical Engineers of the U.S. Army circa 1846. It reminded him of a harbor in Instanbul named Chrysoceras or Golden Horn." I can't find satisfactory references to back this up. Anyone? johndbeatty (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

White Sharks in the Suicide section

Here is what we can read in the current revision under the suicide section: "The water may be as cold as 47 °F (8 °C), and great white sharks, which tend to congregate around the Farallon Islands, are sometimes seen under the bridge."

I add [citation needed] because on this article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_Shark, we can read the opposite:

"There are no known sightings of Great White sharks in San Francisco Bay."

Can somebody please clarify this, on both articles ?

They're both wrong. There has been at least one sighting of a White shark in SF Bay, but there has never been a confirmed sighting under the bridge. http://cbs5.com/goodquestion/good.question.great.2.448521.html SkipSmith (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Toll History

The recent toll increase to $6 had me wondering what the toll history was on the bridge. I found the following toll rates and increases online from the Marin Independent Journal:

May 1937: 50 cents each way, with a 5-cent extra charge if more than three passengers
July 1950: 40 cents each way
February 1955: 30 cents each way
October 1955: 25 cents each way
October 1968: 50 cents southbound
March 1974: 75 cents southbound
November 1977: $1 southbound
March 1981: $1.25 southbound
December 1981: $2 southbound toll on Fridays and Saturdays, $1 on all other days
July 1991: $3 southbound
July 2000: FasTrak implemented
September 2002: $5 cash toll; $4 FasTrak southbound
September 2008: $6 cash toll; $5 FasTrak southbound

I'm not sure how to include that in the article but it might be noteworthy. http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_10367953 Skywayman (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

? Opening date conflict.

I notice vid of opening ceremony says 1936. All other facts in article state May 1937 Maybe correct so all is same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.56.135 (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing and tried to change the caption under the video. I accidentally changed the name of the file on the Edit page, and the video didn't open. Then I went back in and fixed the video name and changed the caption to 1937, matching the text. But now the vid file won't open. Perhaps someone has some insight? Javalava14 (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)javalava14

History?

According to many sources ([6]; [7]), Joshua A Norton, a San Fransiscan who declared himself Emperor Norton of the United States, once ordered a bridge be built in almost the same location, years before the actual bridge was ordered. There's a section on it on the article about Norton, perhaps there's room to note that somewhere in here? Mnmazur (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong bridge. Try San Francisco Bay Bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Aah, I am an idiot ;) Thanks. Mnmazur (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm just sorry to hear that Oakland is being a dick. That bridge should be named for Norton. - Denimadept (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

6 lanes?

I happen to be a local of SF, and I think that the Golden Gate Bridge has only 5 lanes. Of course I didn't edit since it is original research 98.248.143.151 (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The image in the article clearly shows 6 lanes. Asher196 (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Woo hoo On This Day

WikiProject California take a bow! ----moreno oso (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

See also section

This section had turned into a list of only marginally related bridges. It appeared mis-hap which other suspension bridges were selected to be there. I took out the list of bridges and tried to come up with a true list of "related" articles. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence

"The eastern walkway is for pedestrians and bicycles during the weekdays and during daylight hours only (6:30 am to 3:30 pm), and the western walkway is open to bicyclists on weekday afternoons (after 3:30 pm), weekends, and holidays (3:30 pm to 6:30 am)."

This sentence is ambiguous in about four different ways and needs clarification. Is the bridge always closed to pedestrians after 3:30 PM ? Thats what it says.... 122.106.246.138 (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture pruning

I've removed the gallery, removed a bunch of pictures including one duplicate, and added a link to Commons. Some of the removed pictures were wonderful, no lie, but they were showing up as thumbs. That's too small to do them justice and we have tons of these pictures. Pruned the images back to ones I think can be more readily justified, and left the others for people to see in Commons. If you have issues with my selection, please discuss it here rather than just reverting. - Denimadept (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Suicide section

The text currently reads, "one young woman, Sara Birnbaum, survived, but..."one young man survived a jump in 1979, swam to shore, and drove himself to a hospital. " Using the term "young woman" or "young man" is non-specific and does not fit in an "encyclopedia" Their age needs to be stated, or the adjective removed. Since "citation needed" is used with one of the claims, then the entire things is ultimately pointless. If there is no citation, then it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Oh, wait, that's right, wikipedia isn't a real encyclopedia. never mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.92.21 (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Who is Gene Sprague, and why is he specifically mentioned by name (and given a link that goes to an article that does not mention him at all? --Dcfleck (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
It was an article, merged into "The Bridge" article. If you go to Gene Sprague, you'll find it's a redirect. It used to be its own article. I've removed the link from this article because we've already got a link to The Bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It says in the article that about 1,200 suicides have been commited and that this would be the world record. The article on the Yangtze River Bridge in Nanjing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Yangtze_River_Bridge however states that 2,000 people jumped off that bridge, which is 800 more. Any reliable data on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.234.36.56 (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Nanjing Yangtze River Bridge doesn't have a cite for that figure. I've requested one. The GGB does have a cite. - Denimadept (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


"Most photographed" ...

... according to Frommers, a US source.
As opposed to much older bridges, like the Brooklyn Bridge, Tower Bridge, the Ponte Vecchio, the Rialto Bridge, the Bridge of Sighs?
Why does this sound like a throwaway remark by a Frommers author?
Varlaam (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Northbound tolls

When did those come to an end?
I happen to have seen a movie showing northbound booths obstructing traffic in 1967.
Varlaam (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Walkway Gap

Surely this is worthy of mention, near the suicide area of the page, or anywhere else. There was a gap in the bridge between the walkway and the road, and a little girl died falling through it in 1997.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1997/12/23/NEWS5572.dtl
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1997/12/24/MN56134.DTL

That story is very sad, and very personal to me, because my brothers and I were walking across the bridge in about 1994-1995 (I lived in SF all my life) and my little brother (about 5 or 6 at the time) fell through the exact same gap on accident after tripping, and my dad dove up to his shoulder in that hole, and barely grabbed my brother's ankle before he fell through to his death. One quarter second more, and my brother would have been the one that died, and not the little girl. I have no doubt they would have fixed it if my brother had fallen (we were about 2/3 of the way back from the north end to the SF end), but unfortunately the city did not listen to my father's complaint, and the tragic part is that the little girl's death could have been prevented if SF would have listened, and fixed the problem two years before that girl had ever died.

I thank God that my brother is alive today. He's turning 23 this year, and just graduated from college last spring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.27.133 (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

1989 Earthquake

Any damage, was it closed? 209.225.141.253 (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Golden Gate Bridge

—′You forgot to mention in your article the John A. Roebling Steel and Wire Co. How dare you!! They made the cables for the suspension part of the bridge. Their factory was located in Roebling, NJ. My paternal grandfather, a Hungarian immigrant, helped make the wires that made up that bridge. The Roeblings would turn over in their graves knowing that you grossly neglected to mention them. And Roebling had factories in Trenton, NJ, and I lived near them as a child. FIX THIS ARTICLE!!! Marilyn R. Carrier May 27, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.68.136 (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't insult, write yourself. BTW, the company clearly is mentioned in the picture about the cable display. --79.229.156.18 (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Elevator

This sfgate article says "officers rode an elevator to the top of the tower."

I assume there's an elevator shaft inside each tower. this document (on PDF page 13 which is page 11 of the scanned document) mentions an elevator but that was during construction of the bridge and may well have been an external elevator that was later removed. This report seems to confirm there was an external construction elevator.

The internal elevators seem to exist.[8][9][10][11]

this page has an image of the motor (image 17 on the page) and a link to the controller.

The main issue I see with documenting the elevators for Wikipedia is that the sources are not good quality WP:RS. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Traffic

I recently added information about bus service to the "Traffic" section of the article. There is also already information about walking and bicycling. Given that this section seems to be as much about bridge access and users than, say, traffic volumes, maybe it's time to rename the section or create separate sections about the number of users and the types of users. How do people feel about renaming it to something like "Bridge Users and Access"? Sirwalterralegh (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea but rather than renaming the section I split it into two sections with the first dedicated to vehicle traffic and the second to the other users. I called the new section "Visiting the bridge" though it's not clear if those bus lines are all for getting to the bridge or if some of them cross the bridge without stopping. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

How is the Golden Gate Bridge like the Cleveland Browns?

They both have a distinct color of their own and instead of using the color in their very name, seemingly said "let's use Orange instead!" for no apparent reason.

Sorry, the Cleveland browns should have Brown helmets and the Golden Gate Bridge should be painted Gold.

Nowhere does either answer the question "why orange"?

The article here hints at but doesn't actually say that the primer just happened to be orange and they liked it and kept it. If the primer was orange, then what color did they originally intend?

And who decided this?

PcGnome (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC) PcGnome (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article does in fact definitely say why International Orange was picked. In the "Aesthetics" section: "The color was selected by consulting architect Irving Morrow because it complements the natural surroundings and enhances the bridge's visibility in fog".
Incidentally, the bridge was named after the Golden Gate, the strait that the bridge crosses. This "Golden Gate" name is a reference to the California Gold Rush, i.e. the metal, not the color. Likewise, the Cleveland Browns was named, not for the color they wear, but after Paul Brown, the team's first head coach. I just don't get your reasons that something should be a certain color just because its name contains a homonym. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Hold on here. It's great that you answered his question by reading the article. But then you made an assertion that does NOT conform with the known facts or this article. The Golden Gate strait is NOT named after the 1849 California Gold Rush. It was named by the cartographer John C. Frémont several years before the Gold Rush, and was named to honor the Golden Horn in Istanbul, Turkey, a strait with a similarly narrow channel. Please read the article. Highspeed (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I stand corrected, as I misread the article, when it actually says that Fremont named it before the gold rush. Which now means that "golden" is ambiguous. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Suicide Section

The article compares the Golden Gate Bridge with Aokigahara forest in terms of numbers of suicides. The wording is just problematic, because it compares a suicide rate of every two weeks for the Golden Gate Bridge with a suicide rate of 30 per year for Aokigahara Forest. Logically, this would make Golden Gate Bridge #2 because it has around 26 suicides on average. Maybe someone can fix the wording, perhaps just by removing the over-detailed information about the forest in Japan. Twocs (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Construction query

The construction date and cost $35M had an invisible question which I have removed and post here. 'note: this contradicts later statements. What was initial budget?'. Cites say the amount and that it was ahead of schedule and under budget, but to make sure this isn't revisionist history, can anyone cite the actual initial budget or estimates which is prior to 1933 ? Markbassett (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The construction date and cost bottom statemet of finished by 1937 and under budget had a second invisible note which I have removed and post here: 'contradictory statement from earlier draft: "Actual construction costs turned out to be $36.7 million, resulting in a cost overrun of 22%"' The question seems to be was it under or overrun. I am tagging cites that say underruns, but that may be repeating propaganda so would want a more authoritative cite or source that predates the finish so the actual projection vs actual costs can be compared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbassett (talk • contribs) 15:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As a musical instrument

Between 2 and 4 AM on August 5, 1975, Michael Phillips, Doug McKechnie and Arnie Lazarus leased the Golden Gate bridge for $13.50 an hour and "...recorded the sounds of the vertical cables, guard rails, light posts, the towers and the main suspension cable with a wooden mallet" using Arnie Lazarus' invention, the Flat Response Audio Pickup or FRAP. Twelve years later, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the bridge, they recorded a CD that utilized the sounds. http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/sanfranciscosynthesizere

Anyway, this might be a useful thing to add to the article. K8 fan (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

They did an updated version for the 75th anniversary. http://www.sfsynth.com/

Separate "Suicides" to own article

The "Suicide"-section has grown a bit large section of the article, so how about new article named ex. Golden Gate Bridge suicides--RicHard-59 (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's very notable (notorious), has been covered extensively in the media, and created significant controversy and developments over the years. Wikimandia (talk)

Where is the Golden Gate Bridge located?

Dd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.24.201.149 (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Suicides at bridge article

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Page murder/suicide incident, I made a WP:BOLD move and created a separate article, Suicides at the Golden Gate Bridge. I'm letting those who have watchlisted this article know so that the appropriate discussion about merging can take place. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Note the section two above this one. - Denimadept (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I saw it after I had written this. Then had to make sure I didn't make a major error and created another "Suicides..." article. I didn't, thank goodness! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Golden Gate Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

f. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.9.204.20 (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Golden Gate Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2017

Is 80 years old vice 79 76.217.132.35 (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. ChamithN (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I have tweaked the start date and age unit from the Brooklyn Bridge and it has changed to 80. Britmax (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request AND ERROR CORRECTION in history - financing section

This section is thin and could use more detail. There should also be a correction. My changes are in bold and I have included a new cite:

CORRECTION: Giannini did not "buy the entire issue in order to help the local economy," as the current article states.

Finance

The Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District, authorized by an act of the California Legislature, was incorporated in 1928 as the official entity to design, construct, and finance the Golden Gate Bridge.[13] The district was made up of San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Del Norte, and parts of Mendocino and Napa counties. However, after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, the District was unable to raise the construction funds, so it lobbied for a $30 million bond measure. The bonds were approved in November 1930,[16] by votes in the counties affected by the bridge.[28] The construction budget at the time of approval was $27 million. However, the District was unable to sell the bonds until 1932, when Amadeo Giannini, the founder of San Francisco–based Bank of America, agreed on behalf of his bank to buy $6 million worth of bonds, allowing the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge to get under way[1]. Ultimately, public financing totaled $35 million in 40-year bonds, paying 5% interest[2], to construct the bridge and render it operational. LFBedard (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Bedard, 9 June 2017

The neighborly.com source is self-published, and has been spammed by the editor.
The bankofamerica.com source is also self-published.
I think better sources should be found and used to ensure accuracy and neutrality. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bank of America. "Building the most photographed bridge in the world". Bank of America. Retrieved June 9, 2017.
  2. ^ Neighborly. "How the Golden Gate Bridge Was Built: A Muni Bond Success Story". Neighborly. Retrieved June 9, 2017.

Speed limit citation misquoted

The section "Traffic" includes this sentence:

″To improve safety, the speed limit on the Golden Gate Bridge was reduced from 50 to 45 mph (80 to 72 km/h) on October 1, 1989.[52]″

However the link in footnote 52 states the date as October 1, 1983.

Paul Penna (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2017

In the opening text, change 1,300 m to 1.280 m, otherwise the span appears longer than Verrazano-Narrows (1.298 m), a bridge which surpassed it in span record. The 1.280 m appear in other places on the page, but the opening text is the most read for this information. JohnTerp (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Done The change seems reasonable, so I've changed the conversion to use 3 significant figures. Murph9000 (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2017

Theroadgal 23:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2017

PLEASE CHANGE "The color of the bridge is officially an orange vermilion called international orange.[43]" TO "The color of the bridge is officially Grey."

THE COLOR IS OFFICIALLY GREY. IT HAS BEEN FOR YEARS. THIS IS PROVEN WITH PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE. I TRIED TO UPLOAD AN IMAGE AS PROOF BUT YOUR SITE WILL NOT ALLOW IT. Fusionsportusa (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See Help:Menu/Images and media for image uploading information. We generally don't, however, change factual statements that are supported by cited sources just because of one person's interpretation of a photo. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Golden Gate 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) 18:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2018

The article incorrectly states the date the speed limit was changed from 50 MPH to 45 MPH as October 1, 1989. The citation for that claim, http://goldengatebridge.org/research/dates.php, lists the date of that change as October 1, 1983. 199.106.103.55 (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done  Ivecos (t) 06:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golden_Gate_Bridge/Archive_1&oldid=1136770243"