Talk:Ponte Vecchio

message: There is an error here. How can the ratio be 1:5 when the maximum rise is 4.4m and the minimum span 27m? Even in this case the ratio must be 27/4.4 = 6.136! And if we assume a minimum rise of 3.5 and the maximum span of 30m, then the ratio must be even 30/3.5 = 8.571! 
So, could someone check this out?
The rise data may be dubious.  Joseph Needham's data was: main span 29.9 m, rise 5.6 m, rise to
span ratio  0.187. Gisling (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rise-to-Span-Ratio  

message: Paolo truly did jump from the ponte vecchio. I have a video of it if somebody would like to upload it.
: Can you please let us know why you consider this jump encyclopedia-worthy? Is "Paolo" famous for some reason? Is the jump particularly difficult or particularly daring? rm 08:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, you convinced me not to jump from the Ponte Vecchio. However, as far as I know, 10 meters (32.8 feet) is a standard hight in platform diving competitions and - while not leaving a large safety margin - 3 meters of water depth should do under normal circumstances. I agree that it is story, but I don't think it is history which should be recorded in the article on the Ponte Vecchio. rm 05:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jump Video 

message: of what it was built?  It possibly needs rephrasing.  Midgley 16:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  if we are not sure when it was built, how  

message: The article says that "the Ponte Vecchio was not destroyed by Germans ... This was allegedly because of an express order by Hitler."  I had always heard that Hitler had ordered the destruction of all the bridges over the Arno, and that the general in command of Florence refused to destroy the Ponte Vecchio.  (Somewhat akin to von Choltitz not destroying Paris in defiance of orders.)  Anyone have any evidence one way or the other?  Thanks, Ryan McDaniel 01:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Six hundred fifty years later, during World War II, the Americans were chasing the German army up the Italian "boot." The Germans were blowing up everything of aid to the progression of the American army, including the bridges across the Arno River. But no one wanted to blow up the Ponte Vecchio, because Beatrice had stood on it and Dante had written about her. So the German army made radio contact with the Americans and, in plain language, said they would leave the Ponte Vecchio intact if the Americans would promise not to use it. The promise was held. The bridge was not blown up, and not one American soldier or piece of equipment went across it.
Can't verify, though --Dantesoft (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Near destruction in WWII 

message: I have revised this claim, as (a) it is not an open-spandrel bridge, as clearly shown by the photos, and (b) it is not Europe's oldest segmental arch bridge (see Alconétar Bridge). -- Kvetner 10:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest segmental arch bridge? 

message: Does anyone know if the bridge was affected in any way by the 1966 Flood of the River Arno in Florence? --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The floodwaters submerged at least part of the bridge; I've seen pictures of ruined shops filled with mud. Don't have a source handy, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the reasons for introducing the segmental arches, of course, was that they were better at coping with heavy flooding. I can't think that simply being partly under water would do too much harm to this bridge. The greatest harm in 1966 was to things not designed to cope with floods. Xn4 (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well here's some evidence of the damage . --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. The damage seems to be mostly to the floors and walls which jut out from the bridge. That claim "The Ponte Vecchio was almost completely destroyed during the 1966 flood catastrophe" strikes me as over the top. In the pictures, the bridge itself looks sound under the damaged superstructure. Xn4 (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm not so sure now. Our traditional notions of superstructure and foundation are a little challenged by structures such as these - is the 'bridge' just the arches, cutwaters and spandrel, with the rest being a superstructure upon these 'foundations' or is the thing as a whole 'the bridge'. It's probably the later, in which case removal of those outer loadbearing walls in the superstructure looks quite perilous - if we had a stacked superstructure failure there it might well have collapsed the bridge below in any event. I think its perhaps not such a wild claim. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I agree that the Ponte Vecchio is the whole thing. But I can imagine a very much greater degree of 'complete destruction' - as in what was done to the Stari Most at Mostar. Xn4 (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the key is in the 'almost' complete destruction - bridge collapses are always rather dramatic and the tipping point from 'almost' to 'complete' is a narrow one. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt there was a structural survey after the 1966 flood. That should fathom whether there was a possibility of collapse. Xn4 (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah that would be a great source....! --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: apropos that - this (see paper presented by Chiarugi, Andrea) looks promising. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe they might be better in a piped table so we can control the sizes? --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, perhaps you're right - we've got commons for galleries really - I'll move it over here for now. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flooding and some questions

message: moved from mainspace for now - see above - the idea is we'll gradually reintroduce some of these to illustrate prose, currently some of these are lovely snapshots, but of little encyclopaedic value.--Joopercoopers (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery

message: The bridge is located in Italy and within the historic center of Florence, a World Heritage Site. I added their templates to the talk page. Are there other wikiprojects which might have interest in tha article? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Wikiprojects 

message: I'm trying to understand how this is not a normal bridge.  Many bridges used to have houses and such on them, so that can't be it.  What is it, then? - Denimadept (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: May I ask, what do you mean by 'normal'? Xn4 (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was one thing to me that took this bridge out of the "normal" (as much as I despise that term), it would be the historical signifigance of this bridge. When I thought about furthering the discussion on the bridge infobox, I started to realize that perhaps history (or historic landmark) buffs might have a greater interest in this bridge than bridge buffs. That's why I added other talk headers. (Of course, I raised a very raucous--but completely silent--cheer when I saw that each of these other wikiproject pages supports the use of infoboxes on pages they work on. Oh, no! That might lead to a heated discussion on which project's infobox is more appropriate to supply information at-a-glance.) - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

text: All I know is that someone said the bridge isn't a normal bridge.  Darned if I know what they meant.  If it's the associated history or the age, there are many such bridges, so I'm looking for what's about this bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a normal bridge? 

message: I've revert quiddity, disliking the 'centralised authority' (given by whom?) approach and finding the 'swoop in, set out the toys, and leave' approach (see above) rather patronising - we know how to establish such things without such help - it's the why that's at issue. thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Attempted assistance ("toys") removed. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: revert

message: I asked Jack Merridew to see if he could sort the issues around getting the bridge and building boxes to glom together into one composite box, but I don't think he's made a lot of progress... (see User:Lar/multibox test and the templates it embeds). My hope was that if this could be figured out we could move to a box that had both the bridge-nature and the building-nature to satisfy the "not just a bridge" view point. But I'm not sure how else to proceed. This article is a singleton as far as I know, no other article has a collapsing infobox. Or are there others? ++Lar: t/c 02:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if there are others, but I don't think the collapsible infobox is a good idea. I think I've made it clear that I don't want an infobox at all, but it also seems clear that there are more people here who want some kind of box--whether it be the standard bridge box or a custom box. Maybe we could discuss what information we think readers need at a glance, and we can design a custom box around that. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The discussion from last year also concerned Cellini Salt Cellar, which for a time used , then a collapsible type as here, followed by back to standard infobox and finally none—see history beginning July 24, 2008. Other than that, I know of no other use of this type of infobox. Rather than removal of this hiding infobox, which has no support I can see here, I believe we are back to an "to infobox or not to infobox" issue. I will excuse myself from that but recommend the approach suggested by Akhilleus. Sswonk (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalemate? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ponte Vecchio. 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/20121219172808/http://www.holiday-velvet.com/guide/2009/11/florence-ponte-vecchio-history/ to http://www.holiday-velvet.com/guide/2009/11/florence-ponte-vecchio-history/
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) 00:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I’m sure I’m going to sound like a real pleb... but I can’t understand this; 
:It was rebuilt in 1345. Giorgio Vasari recorded the traditional view of his day that attributed its design to Taddeo Gaddi — besides Giotto one of the few artistic names of the trecento still recalled two hundred years later. Modern historians present Neri di Fioravanti as a possible candidate.
What’s Giotto got to do with it? Did Gaddi design any of it? Is the traditional view of Vasari still (even partially) valid?  I presume the “attributed” refers to the 1345 design. I presume Fioravanti is a possible candidate for the 1345 design [not clear, I reckon]. 
But mostly; why is it famous?  Paintings? Song (apart from Puccini)? Historical event?  Do people see it as beautiful?
MBG02 (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why famous?