Talk:Gateway Arch National Park

message: The article says, "Its legs are equilateral triangles". I don't know what that means, and I don't even see how that could be meaningful. Can anyone clarify, or should I remove it?
James barton 12:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could it have meant the cross-sections of its legs? Michael Hardy 20:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the pictures, it seems likely that cross-sections are what was intended.  I've edited the article accordingly. Michael Hardy 20:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Clarification

message: The article said:
::this set of parametric equations:
:::Y=A \left ( \cosh \frac {X}{L} C- 1 \right )
:::X=\frac {L}{C} \left [ \cosh^{-1} \left ( 1+ \frac {Y}{A} \right ) \right ] 
Calling it a "set of parametric equations" leads one to expect that it expresses both X and Y as functions of some parameter -- the same parameter for both.  Having read that, one immediately sees:
:Y=\cdots\,
:X=\cdots,\,
and that's just what you expect when you read the words "set of parametric equations", and you expect to see, to the right of "=", expressions of X and Y in terms of some paramater independent of both.  Then you actually read what they say, and that's not it at all.
Hence my recent edit. Michael Hardy 20:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusingly stated equations

message: According to http://www.nps.gov/jeff/adhi%20Folder/adhi2-13.htm , there have been no less than eleven incidents of aircraft having been flown under the arch, not four as stated in the article.
Leebert 02:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The count of four came from the arch timeline on the P-D website.  The NPS page's footnotes thoroughly document the eleven, so I've updated the page, and added the bit about the aborted attempt to scale it. --Kbh3rdtalk 03:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the text to "No less than 11 aircraft" from "As many as".  Perhaps a quibble, but the referenced article itself says that there were 11 confirmed flythroughs, which would set a lower boundry, not an upper boundry. Leebert 19:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incidents of flights through the Arch

message: The website http://www.squidoo.com/stlouisarch/ (found in a Google search) seems to have copied the Wikipedia article but there is no mention of the GNU Free Documenation license on the website. --Mosquitopsu 05:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website Copying 

message: I think it should mention exactly how long it took to make the Arch, the amount of materials in weight or quantity, and exactly what was built along with it.
I believe I read that actuaries had predicted that about 10 workers would perish during construction, but not a one was lost.  Perhaps this fact can be found in citable form. weetbixkid 06:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raw Facts? 

message: How many images are sufficient?  Rklawton 04:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not so much quantity as placement, imho. In most articles I've seen, picture galleries are near the bottom of the article, just above or below the external links. It'd be really good if they were on Wikicommons instead, too, so one could then use  or . Plus they could be categorized more specifically. See what I mean:
 -Ebyabe 12:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photographs

message: Is it really a common misconception that the Arch spans the Mississippi? I have yet to meet anyone who thought that.
:I thought it did when I was a kid. Rklawton 14:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think that, but my brother thought the the bridge for I-70 that went over the Mississippi river was "driving on top of the arch" when he was about 5 years old. Madlobster (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Back when I was in school in the 1970's, that was what we were taught. A single look at any picture that shows the arch and ground quickly corrected that erroneous instruction.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanning the river

message: It is a basilica with the official title of Basilica of St. Louis, King of France but it is never called "the Old Basilica".  The colloqial name that everyone in town refers to it by is "The Old Cathederal", and that never changed when it was designated a basilica.  No one ever says, "I'll meet you in front of the Old Basilica".  (I accidentally hit enter before I fully entered the gist of this on the edit summary.)  Indeed, it would be nonsense to call it the Old Basilica.  The word "old" is used in this context in the sense of "former", and it is a former cathederal -- once held the Bishop's official cathedra -- but it is currently, not formerly, a basilica.  --Kbh3rdtalk 21:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whuh?PvtDeth (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cathedral vs. Basilica 

message: 
:This is just a bit of trivia. All sorts of monuments and sites were closed at that time. It could be mentioned on the 9/11 page, but not on every single monument page. --Dschwen 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's not exactly unique or notable in the longterm. Dayewalker (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed during 9/11, but for how long? 

message: Do you really think that Eero and Hannskarl put their heads together and decided that 194.024 meters would be the ideal height and width of this monument, and then Hannskarl broke out the ol' slide rule and said, "What do you know!  That's exactly 630 feet."  No, they designed it to be 630 feet tall and 630 feet wide.  That, plus the fact that feet are the native units where this is located argue for feet and acres to be the primary units used in the article.  And style dictates that one set of units be applied consistently throught the article, whichever system is chosen.  I've made it so.  --Kbh3rdtalk 05:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of units 

message: Is it necessary to talk about its cultural significance here, since it has its own article on Wikipedia? RM2KX (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please disregard. Subtopic is appropriate. RM2KX (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Courthouse on "To Do List" above 

message: I am cleaning up the external links following the Wikipedia guideline, and I have removed these four, for the reasons named:
* Arch documentary – PROMOTIONAL: Llinks to photos and info, but primarily wants you to purchase a documentary film.
* Tourism – PROMOTIONAL: Tourism website, linking to many ticket-sellers
* JNPA – PROMOTIONAL: Links to retail and donation requests
* Darwin Award – NOT FACTUAL: Date given is questioned in the article, and how would we know the account of an event by someone who died during it?
Please recommend re-inclusion if you feel differently about any of them, and let's discuss it here. RM2KX (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links cleanup 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jefferson National Expansion Memorial. 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/20080407233919/http://genealogyinstlouis.accessgenealogy.com/landmarks.htm to http://genealogyinstlouis.accessgenealogy.com/landmarks.htm
*Added  tag to http://stlcin.missouri.org/release/getpressdetails.cfm?Auto=1220
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jefferson National Expansion Memorial. 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/20080131214652/http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/10DA9EE598C17FAD86257345007A63F0?OpenDocument to http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/10DA9EE598C17FAD86257345007A63F0?OpenDocument
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: From the article: "To the west of the Old Courthouse is a Greenway between Market and Chestnut Streets which is only interrupted by the Civil Courts Building". Looking at the Greenway at Google maps it is clear that before the Civil Courts Building there is another big building: Peabody Plaza. אביהו (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only interrupted by the Civil Courts Building? 

message: While the Arch may be accurately called the 'Gateway Arch', the Park is not the Gateway Arch National Park.  It is designated by Congressional Legislation at Jefferson National Expansion Memorial National Historic Site.   Do we want to let 'common' naming become the standard where there is a 'official' name that can be identified.  Like the natural worlds Linnaean taxonomy, common names from around the world have a single 'world' standard.  While places may not, there are 'official' or at least preferential names based on public documents from various government or standards agencies.  For the United States, there is the United States Board on Geographic Names, for Historic Sites, there are State Historic Registers and nationally, the National Register of Historic Places.
Thus, the NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM (June 4, 1976) clearly call the park and the historic places as the Jefferson Nat'l Expansion Mem. The property consists of 3 historic components:
#  Old St. Louis County Courthouse 
#  Gateway Arch
#  Old Cathedral
Thus, the commons categories of :Gateway Arch, :Basilica of St. Louis, King of France and :Basilica of St. Louis, King of France are appropriate or at least reasonable as sub-categories and the :Museum of Westward Expansion fits as it's a significant location/topic within the Gateway Arch complex.  The over all listing should (in my opinion) be Jefferson National Expansion Memorial National Historic Site.   
Redirects can be created to move public searches for Gateway Arch to Jefferson National Expansions Memorial National Historic Site. 
#REDIRECT name of the target page --Chris Light () 16:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename [[:Jefferson National Expansion Memorial National Historic Site|Jefferson National Expansion Memorial National Historic Site]]

message: I'm assuming this isn't listed in the "Protected Areas Established in 2018" because it was Donald Trump who authorized it, which would mean admitting that this orange monster did something GOOD for once, right? I'd like to see that in this category (because the more new national parks, the better) but that would mean saying something nice about Trump. Should this be in that category?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.76.107.165 (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2018 

message: "The Gateway Arch and its immediate surroundings were initially designated as a national memorial by executive order on December 21, 1935, and redesignated as a national park in 2018." -- This is misleading at best.  The arch did not physically exist in 1935.  Someone quickly reading this is likely to come away thinking the contrary and wind up crediting Wikipedia with false information. 213.109.221.236 (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out.  I've clarified the wording to make it clear that the Gateway Arch was completed in 1965. -- RobLa (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity