Talk:Bear Mountain Bridge

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels 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.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state): Hudson Valley Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Hudson Valley (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

Would anyone mind if I removed {{NYC Hudson River crossings}}? --Chris 19:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:NYC Hudson River crossings

Template:NYC Hudson River crossings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:NYC Hudson River crossings. Thank you. --Chris 16:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toll direction?

This page says tolls are collected east bound only. The New York State Bridge Authority article says "The Bridge Authority charges an auto toll of $1 in both directions". Which is right? --agr 20:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:NY Waterway logo.gif

Image:NY Waterway logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Nywaterwaylogo.png

The image Image:Nywaterwaylogo.png 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.

The following images also have this problem:

File:ANST-Triangle-Logo 1.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added history material

Also did some reorganization. Could be expanded.

Also, is "cable maintenance" section appropriate? What about footings, pavement, paint job, yellow lines, etc.? It all seems kind of equally irrelevant to me, but I won't touch it unless somebody else agrees.

Whoever did photos and boxes, nice job!

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance

Don't have time to fully discuss. But "Maintenance" is routine and expected of any bridge. Why would it be included in a general article?

Should we have a history of when the bridge has been painted? The resurfacing of its roadway? Replacing a material in cables may not be notable, but it's also not "maintenance. At minimum the header is wrong.

Likewise minor techical adjustments probably aren't notable. How about the history of computerization for accounting with regard to toll collection at the Bear Mountain Bridge? I suppose that's significant to somebody, and somewhat complex....but it probably ought not appear in a general article.

Even disregarding these obvious questions, there isn't adequate information to support the section.

"A material??" What material?

Is this "material" unique to Bear Mountain Bridge? If so, is the bridge authority merely allowing all other bridges in the New York area to collapse? Do no other bridge "maintainers" know about this Why Not?

I very much share the quoted hopes of the bridge authority's chief administrator for the Bear Mountain Bridge, but there is much about the "maintenance" section that I don't understand, not least of which why it should remain in the article.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on this, Calamitybrook. It's just no germane to an encyclopedia article. A web page on the Bridge or a blog, yes, but not here. Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I tend to agree, but regardless, the information presented is very incomplete. It's remotely possible (though hard to imagine) that there is something highly significant which isn't captured in current write-up about "the material."

Separately, regarding lede: I'll accept your preference, though am obviously partial to brevity and reserving info for body.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The material developed and tested on this bridge is a significant development and was mentioned in a notable journal about bridges. This was the test bridge, and this material is likely to have a big positive effect on the maintenance of bridges world wide. Why not include it? BTW, the original version of this, deleted several months ago mentioned the material that was developed and the manufacturer. It was deleted because other editors thought it sounded to promotional. For this reason, when I restored the text, I just said "a material". -- ☑ SamuelWantman 11:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two suggestions: one, does the material more appropriately belong under a "Maintenance Issues" type heading in the umbrella article on suspension bridges? That's what it's really about, inherent challenges involved in maintaining suspension bridge cables, not anything specific to the Bear Mountain Bridge (as, for argument, content would be if say the East side buttress started to give due to some geologic fault and a novel solution was developed to anchor it back into the mountain side).

If its detail belongs elsewhere, the use of the Bear Mountain Br. as a testbed for the method being used today could be cited on this page with an internal link.

Two, if not, and it stays, how about a more condensed version of the content remaining here? A suggested revision?

If the content is to remain in its current depth, I do however prefer a variant of Sam's original version over the current edit, which inverts the passage and its thrust.

Overall, the article has come a long way in just the last two months or so.Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I considered adding this information to Suspension Bridge. However, I only have the one citation for the development of this technology, and I do not have any citations that would document that the widespread use of the material. So it seemed better to put it here until it becomes more widely used, and then move the information. This seemed analogous to some innovative architectural design having just been developed for use in one building. When it becomes mentioned in texts and articles on architecture, it would be worthy of a mention in the article on architecture. Until then, it is a technology that is notable in its relation to the structure in which it was used. I have no problem with substituting a shorter version. I added the section because I found it very interesting, and as long as some version remains with a link to the citation, it will be useful to others who are interested in the technology and environmental impact of bridge maintenance. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Maintenance" Revision

The subject of this section continues to be a topic which is not in any sense "Maintenance" and therefore at minimum, carries the WRONG heading.

As one who has taken some pains to make significant improvements to this article recently, my personal view remains that this information is entirely irrelevant to a general treatment of the subject.

I do think the segment is now marginally improved. But it continues to beg the OBVIOUS question regarding the identity of the mystery "material."

I don't expect to delete the segment --- but could reasonably hope a better justification could be made for its inclusion -- partly in the form of greater quality of information.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery

What are these pictures adding to the article which the link to Commons doesn't accomplish, please? - Denimadept (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bear Mountain Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bear Mountain 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) 16:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Name

The initial news stories (like this one) on October 2nd indicated the Bear Mountain Bridge's name had changed to the Purple Heart Veterans Memorial Bridge. However a later reliable news story indicates the name is merely ceremonial. I am therefore adjusting the article to reflect that, however I have started this discussion for the input of other editors. Since the Purple Heart designation is ceremonial rather than an official name change after all, the infobox title should remain the Bear Mountain Bridge.

However, it should be stated that WP:COMMONNAME extends to article titles only. It is well established precedent that bridges, tunnels and other infrastructure infoboxes reflect the official name with a commonly used other name being mentioned secondarily. Changing all cited articles to fit one's narrative (see Triborough Bridge, Brooklyn–Battery Tunnel and Tappan Zee Bridge (2017–present)) does not change the actual precedent. HudsonValley (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]