This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Thames which includes the Thames locks, crossings, islands, tributaries, settlements, ports, marinas, all river-based businesses, services, sport, events and leisure activities as well as the Thames in history, art and literature. If you would like to help you can improve the article attached to this page and/or sign up on the project page where you will find resources and task lists.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Roads, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of UK roads on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I think it's a fun fact about the bridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
If this light pattern had been covered by a reliable source for some reason, and if the article were large and developed enough for the removed "fun fact" not to be given undue weight merely by its inclusion, I might have advocated its retention (although with no particular fervour; it is, admittedly, rather tasteless). As things stand, I believe that the curiosity in question has no place in the article—or, to answer Bencherlite's question, in this encyclopaedia.
Besides, captions are not supposed to be italicised. Waltham, The Duke of 06:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely no grounds to include this. Any trefoil window or object will cast a shadow of this shape when the sun's at a particular angle, and the trefoil is a very common motif in Gothic and Gothic Revival monumental and religious architecture. There are thousands of structures to which this fact replies, and no source has ever singled out Westminster Bridge as a particularly significant case. – iridescent 20:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Before fiddling with the display of units, we need to determine, as accurately as possible, the dimensions of the bridge. Michael Glass (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with your analysis and conclusion. The WP:UITS is unambiguous: "UK engineering-related articles, including all bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn-up in..." Note "all" bridges. Unless you plan to argue that the Victorian era bridge was drawn-up by the Victorian era British architect in metric measures, then, no matter what the actual length, and no matter what units the sources you choose to portray use, the dimensions must be displayed with the prevailing units of the day shown as primary, that is feet first in this case. Timpace (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Timpace, you need to be aware of the general sanctions that apply to units of measure on UK articles. Please familiarise yourself with this policy before you do any more edits. Changes to the display of units can only be made when there is consensus. Michael Glass (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
There are a number of different estimates of the length of the Westminster Bridge.
The first one that came up from a Google search was from London Architecture. . It gave the length as 827 feet (252m).
A second website gave both the length and the width in metres. . Length 209 metres, width 37m.
A third website gives some very interesting details, but not the overall length and width of the bridge 
Revising the article isn't a matter of flipping the display of units, but checking information and making sure that the article is accurate. Michael Glass (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Here are some dimensions given in 19th century books and newspaper articles describing the bridge:
Collins' illustrated guide to London and neighbourhood (1871), William Collins, p104. 1160 feet long, 85 feet wide.
The World's Guide to London in 1862, Darton and Hodge, p70. 1160 feet long, 85 feet wide.
The Popular Guide to London and its Suburbs (1862), Routledge, p108. 1160 feet long, 85 feet wide.
The London Times, 3 September 1858, p7. From extreme of abutment to abutment 1160 feet long, 85 feet wide.
Total confusion! How could a bridge be 1,150 feet (350 m) long and 85 feet (26 m) wide in the nineteenth century and 827 feet (252 m) today? Something is wrong here.That's a difference in length of just over 100 metres! Michael Glass (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)