# Talk:Pulteney Bridge

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Puente Pulteney, Bath, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 51.JPG will be appearing as picture of the day on December 10, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-12-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

"One of only four bridges in the world to have shops across its full span on both sides."

In addition to the Ponte Vecchio in Florence and the Rialto Bridge in Venice, the four alluded to may include the Cedar Street Bridge in Sandpoint, Idaho, U.S.A. Sca (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I believe the four bridges are 1) Florence’s Ponte Vecchio, 2) Bath’s Pulteney Bridge, 3) Venice’s Rialto Bridge, and 4) Erfurt’s Krämerbrücke. Hope this helps. BrightOrion | talk 13:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The coverage of the development and the loss of Adam's classical purity still isn't well detailed (web searching throws up a few much more detailed sites doing a better job of it). Re this change, it removed the claim that the shops had once been cantilevered out on both sides. I've left this, though unsourced, because I can't find anything to support WP's previous claim that there had ever been cantilevering to the southern, now clear, facade. There's some description of the South side being stripped back before 1951, but it's unclear if this was just the road face, or the outer face too. Sources anyone? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I wrote this originally based on the work of Jean Manco. There is a hint in this web page when she says "It was not to last. 19th-century shopkeepers altered windows, or cantilevered out over the river as the fancy took them." however the detail is in Manco, Jean (1995). "Pulteney Bridge". Architectural History. 38 (38): 129–145. doi:10.2307/1568625. JSTOR 1568625. (unfortunately mostly behind a paywall) when on page 140 she says "Engravings then show little change until the middle years of the century, when shop-keepers on both sides of the bridge began building timber additions, cantilevered out over the river like those on the Ponte Vecchio. An engraving of 1864 shows the two on the south side, while a watercolour of the north side (Fig 18) was made to support a complaint by William Lewis to the Sanitary Committee in 1873." (it then has a quote from the committee hearing/report about throwing out water closets via holes in the cantilevered parts, straight into the river). (this (dated 1864) or  this (1886) may be the image concerned).— Rod talk 10:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - I was wondering why I was finding it so hard to find old illustrations of the south face showing this. I just wasn't looking closely enough at the details.
So what are these? Your illustrations confirm that it happened, but nor is it substantial. This isn't the north face, where whole rooms and a staircase were being tacked on. Is a couple of small bits of khazilevering like this enough to justify use of the term?
I hope the IP who removed this (and who has a relevant IP address) might comment further?  Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I've just welcomed the IP and pointed them to this discussion. It appears we have a category of images from ILN 1864 on commons but unfortunately it doesn't include this one.— Rod talk 11:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I've just looked up the IP address following your comment - but doesn't mean they are council staff could just be someone using one of their library computers or similar.— Rod talk 11:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Pulteney 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110815092052/http://www.holburne.org/muse/search/item.cfm?MuseumNumber=1996.5 to http://www.holburne.org/muse/search/item.cfm?MuseumNumber=1996.5
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905092941/http://www.wapboat.co.uk/bathboating/hist.htm to http://www.wapboat.co.uk/bathboating/hist.htm
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) 22:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The pediment article suggests this an open pediment, not a broken pediment - is it right? catslash (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

To answer my own question: a trawl of Google Books shows that there is no consensus as to which is broken and which is open, unless qualified with -apex or -bed.  According, I shall change broken to broken-bed to remove the ambiguity.  (The pediment article could be a bit more WP:NPOV about this.) catslash (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)