Talk:Golden Gate Bridge

Popular Culture

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 Erendwyn (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC) The original rivets, which were corroding, have been replaced by threaded fastners.OldBlindDog (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)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 ([1]; [2]), 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)

"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)