Talk:Westminster Bridge

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

London Start‑class High‑importance

	London portal 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Bridges and Tunnels Start‑class Low‑importance

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

River Thames Start‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject River Thames, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

London Transport C‑class Mid‑importance

	London transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in 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.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Highways: United Kingdom Unassessed Mid‑importance

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways 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.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the United Kingdom Roads Task Force.

Encyclopaedic comment and photo?

OK, to avoid an edit war over this, does anyone else have any views on whether this photograph and caption, together with the text I removed in this edit, have any place in this encyclopaedia? Bencherlite ^Talk 23:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a fun fact about the bridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.67.108 (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Length of the Westminster Bridge

Different websites give different dimensions for the Westminster Bridge. 915 feet (279 m) long, 85 feet (26 m) wide, 748 feet (228 m) long, 85 feet (26 m) wide, | 252m long and 25,5m wide, [http://www.lobeg.com/lobeg%5Cwest.html |250m long and so on.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [1]. It gave the length as 827 feet (252m).
A second website gave both the length and the width in metres. [2]. Length 209 metres, width 37m.
A third website gives some very interesting details, but not the overall length and width of the bridge [3]

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)[reply]

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.

Chief archivist (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

FWIW the answer to this question may well be the Thames Embankment and the Albert Embankment, i.e. the river is genuinely narrower than it used to be. Kahastok talk 18:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The existing Westminster Bridge was completed in 1862 [4] while the Victoria Embankment was built between 1864 and 1870 [5] A blog gives the following dates: "Albert (1868), Victoria (1870) and Chelsea (1874) Embankments"[6]. However, even if the Thames was narrowed, there is still a difference of 43 metres (141 ft) between two modern measures. This seems extraordinary for a prominent London landmark. Michael Glass (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no consistency on the dimensions of the bridge, I propose removing all reference to the dimensions until someone comes up with something that is accurate. Michael Glass (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've got one source that says 827 feet (252 m) and one that says 250 metres (820 ft). I don't know where you got 209 metres from because I can't find it in either source. I don't see any particular inconsistency here or any reason for further change. Kahastok talk 07:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked my references and I couldn't find 209 metres either. I don't know how I made that mistake. 827 feet (252 m) is probably the most accurate and authoritative reference we have, so I'm happy to leave it at that. However, a reference needs to be supplied to the text. 01:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Michael Glass (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found what is definitely an authoritative document about the bridge, the Tunnel and Bridge Assessments document of 2012 from Thames Water. It gives a detailed assessment of Westminster Bridge.[7]. It gives its total length as 250m and width as 26m. This equates to 820 feet by 85 feet. And 85 feet seems to be almost universally quoted elsewhere as the width. The length was almost certainly reduced significantly when the embankments were built out, and the river width substantially decreased, in the years after the bridge was built. Timpace (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]