Talk:Manhattan Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Older comments[edit]

We seem to be abusing the concept of templates here. Nelson Ricardo 11:51, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

The idea is that when the MTA changes services again, only a few templates need to be changed and everything will update across the board. --SPUI 18:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A quibble about this bit:

On the Brooklyn side, the four tracks merge in a flying junction to create a four-track subway, which quickly merges with the two-track BMT Fourth Avenue Line

The quibble is referring to the section between DeKalb to and/or through the Montague tunnel as part of the 4th Av line. As I recall (perhaps wrongly)', historically the Montague tunnel serviced the Brighton Line before the 4th Av line was ever built. Unless there is a formal name for this stretch, I would avoid the problem and emend this to read ". . . which quickly merges with the two BMT tracks coming from the Montague Street tunnel". I'm the one who did the article on the 4th Av line. See my article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMT_Fourth_Avenue_Line --FourthAve 9 July 2005 04:02 (UTC)

The MTA includes the subway between DeKalb and the Montague Street Tunnel as part of the Fourth Avenue Line. User:SPUI/New York City Subway lines is a table I made of the MTA's designations, found on their funding plans. Lawrence Street is indicated as a station on 4AV. --SPUI (talk) 9 July 2005 10:49 (UTC)
the manhatttan bridge carries pedestrians! I thought the brooklyn bridge only does that?

Deflection cables?[edit]

What part of the bridge is this - should this be suspension cables? Leonard G. 05:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I-478[edit]

Does this article really need the extensive discussion of various possible routes of I-478? For the most part, the discussion doesn't have anything to do with the Manhattan Bridge.

Fair use rationale for Image:ManhattanBridgeLeone.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:ManhattanBridgeLeone.jpg 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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The bridge in films[edit]

As I am not a New Yorker i wasn't 100% sure but i seem to remeber this bridge being featured in The Godfather Part 1, when Michael Corleone is driven top the meeting with Solazzo and the Police Chief.


If i'm right then add it in!

Alex! (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This bridge is shown in the French connection.

...but so what, it's all trivia. It's about those stories/films, not about the bridge. Might as well mention it in the article if I can look out my office window and see the bridge; has as much relevance. - Denimadept (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


How tall are the pylons?[edit]

Couldn't see it in the article. Did I miss it? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Current Traffic Pattern[edit]

The article mentioned that the lower level has reversible lanes, where all 3 can be inbound, all 3 can be outbound, or 2 can be in one direction and 1 in the other. What is the current traffic pattern? It would also be useful to include information about roadways that approach the bridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.64.197 (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it changes to one or the other during rush hour. --NE2 06:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
What about off-peak hours? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.64.197 (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the traffic pattern during off-peak hours[edit]

The article says "The upper level, originally used for streetcars, has two lanes in each direction, and the lower level is one-way and has three lanes in peak direction." However, it does not say anything about off-peak times that don't have a peak direction: mid-days, nights, and weekends. What is the traffic pattern during those times?

Also, what roads can be used to approach the bridge on each side, and what roads can be accessed on each side? It probably varies depending on which level you use.

Gallery[edit]

Today, I was aimed at Wikipedia:IG#Image_galleries. We already have a link to Commons' media, so could we just remove the Gallery? - Denimadept (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The gallery doesn't add anything to the article. The old "a picture is worth a thousand words" adage doesn't always apply on Wikipedia -- an article is usually improved when a gallery of random images is removed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I got that from the link. So we should remove it? - Denimadept (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
No one else has chimed in, so I would say yes. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflict[edit]

The article's prose says Ralph Modjeski designed the bridge. Structurae say Leon Solomon Moisseiff did it. Who is right? - Denimadept (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking further, HAER says Gustav Lindenthal did it. Maybe they were all involved? I could believe that the other two were working under Lindenthal. Hm, no. Looks like Lindenthal had the idea for a design, but not the one used. According to [1], Lindenthal was replaced by Moisseiff. Ah, and Modjeski worked with Moisseiff. Okay, prose and infobox need revision. I'll get to it later if no one else does.
We also need more about the conception and construction of this bridge. The article seems mostly about what happened after the structure was complete, which isn't the most interesting part of the story of most bridges, Galloping Gertie being an exception. - Denimadept (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree about the article content having too little about the bridge and too much about public transit usage of the bridge. I helped a little by noting the main erection contracting and fabricating company for the bridge. Robo45h (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Manhattan Bridge in popular culture[edit]

Under the 'Manhattan Bridge in popular culture' heading I would suggest that the film Wolfen be mentioned < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfen_(film) > as there are several very interesting scenes that take place on top of the Manhattan bridge and one shot from underneath the bridge on the Brooklyn side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.61.235 (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Great Job on this page[edit]

Folks, I added a reference on the 1956 repair of the bridge. But after I added the reference and did some editing, I read the page and looked at the photos. I would like the editors of this page to know, that you have done a GREAT JOB! Thanks. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

On behalf of the hundreds of editors who have worked on the page, thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Pictures again[edit]

We've got too many images of generic content. The new 1917 image is not needed, or it should replace the one of the other end. The Gallery can be deleted again. The tracks image is generic. The image from the tenements is iffy. If any of this stuff isn't on Commons, it should be, and it should be removed from the article. See what I did to the Brooklyn Bridge article earlier. Keep stuff which isn't duplicated by everyone who sees the bridge. Then get rid of everything which doesn't add to the article. Everything else can be found using the Commons link. - Denimadept (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I just took a closer look at the images in the Gallery, and deleted it completely. There was nothing there that needed to be in this article. I figure I'll get more disagreement about the rest of the images, so I'll wait for comment before implementing what I said above. - Denimadept (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I've restored. Don't do that again without a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Remember WP:BEBOLD. The stuff I got rid of is (1) depreciated, and (2) not adding to the article. It's a bunch of really poor shots. We can lose it. - Denimadept (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and remember WP:BRD. Please get a consensus before removing again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
BTW, "deprecated", how is an image "depracated"? It's not a piece of markup code. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Gallaries are depreciated. And BRD is what we've entered into, yes. I made a BOLD. You reverted. Now we're discussing it. OTOH, I made a fairly similar change to Brooklyn Bridge yesterday, which no one has complained about. I, and others, have also done it elsewhere such as at Hoover Dam. Here, I mentioned what I proposed to do, then did what I figured wouldn't be very controvercial, and left the rest for later. I'm curious as to what you feel is in there which (1) is worthy of being in the article rather than just in Commons, and (2) which is good enough to be in the article, AND (3) what you think of the other proposed edits I listed. I only know of one use of "gallery" which makes sense, and no one has said "boo" about it. - Denimadept (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The Brooklyn Bridge article was a total mess, it needed some bold chopping (and still needs more, and some balance in the layout), that's not the case here. Galleries are not deprecated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
After checking WP:IG to be sure, you might want to re-read the second paragraph. I forget where I saw the depreciation of galleries, but it was definitely here on WP. - Denimadept (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
That paragraph simply modifies the first paragraph, giving some common sense advice, and in no way "deprecates" galleries. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

article should be retitled[edit]

This article seems to be primarily about train/subway service on the Manhattan Bridge, and should perhaps be retitled to reflect that.

In all seriousness, the article badly needs descriptions of the design, construction, and history of the bridge, as there is essentially nothing for any of those, and they are a major part of what someone would look for in an article about the bridge. The interminable discussion of the various re-routings of subway trains is of little interest to anyone other than subway buffs, and should be drastically trimmed, if not entirely deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:102:B920:407A:A595:5B3F:B9FA (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll take your section title as hyperbole, but I can't argue your point. The subway bits should probably stay, but the bits about the bridge need to be seriously expanded. Please do your best. - Denimadept (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Denimadept that the article doesn't need to be renamed, but needs more historic content. The detailed public transit usage should probably either be trimmed or put in a separate page. That said, I have done my small part by adding important information about the main erection and fabrication contractor (which was one of the largest bridge companies in the world at the time). Robo45h (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manhattan 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 04:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Subways again[edit]

@Civil Engineer 3: If we're going to delete the content about the subway history, we should at least have an article to put the content into. I do think that we'd be better off including the subways in this article, though, since they are a large part of this bridge's history. epicgenius (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)