Talk:Queensboro Bridge

message: "At the time of its construction, the Queensboro Bridge was the greatest cantilever bridge in the world."  Greatest how?  Tallest?  Longest? --Roy 02:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have replaced the prior image in the infobox. I don't think that the previous image (:Image:Queensborobridge closeup.jpg) really said anything about the bridge at all; first and foremost, it was a picture of Midtown Manhattan—the bridge just happened to be there. It was not the prominent subject at all, and thus I don't feel that it was appropriate for this article. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 16:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image 

message: I replaced the image here with an aerial photo I took from 30 stories up. I wanted to show more of the  structure and the approaches, as well as the scale of the bridge. Also, there was already a night-time photo in the article. This is the old one. -- --K72ndst 04:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Image 

message: The image :Image:Woody allen manhattan.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Woody allen manhattan.jpg

message: This New York Times blog post seems to suggest that it won't be officially renamed the Ed Koch Bridge until next month, so perhaps the re-naming and the move are premature? 174.116.184.220 (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I notice an edit today which suggests that the name change is not retroactive.  This makes sense to me.  I hope no one will revert that edit. - Denimadept (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retroactive? 

message: The sizes of each image should be reduced or brought to their default sizes. This will eliminate problems, especially for small screens and for phones. Epic Genius (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Preset image sizes are not a problem with phones, since the phones simply display them (roughly) at the size of the screen. BMK (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looked at the article on my rather old model iPhone, and there's no problem with the images whatsoever.  They displayed at the width of the phone's screen. BMK (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked it on an Android, same thing, no problem, so this is moot, I think. BMK (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird, because the stacking of the two images on the right side in the transport section messed up the layout on my Android. Epic Genius (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image sizes 

message: Circa 1966, I was employed at an NYU Medical School research facility on what was then called "Welfare Island".  I got there by walking from Manhattan over the 59th Street Bridge to a large old elevator within one of the bridge towers down to the island.  This article mentions an elevator for cars as well as a passenger elevator from the defunct train station but doesn't make clear that there was a working elevator used by hundreds of people daily in the mid 1960's.  My hope is that someone with knowledge of the bridge and its history will amplify the article with respect to this time-period. My recollections include there being ruins of a hospital facility apparently from the turn of the 20th century. The Q102 bus was the other means of access to the island from the Queens side.  AllenRazdow (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure of the date, the mid-60s? BMK (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind about that, I found two references to a passenger elevator operating as late as 1973.  I've added that to the article. BMK (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passenger Elevator 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Queensboro 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/20050403103531/http://transalt.org/bridges/queensboro.html to http://www.transalt.org/bridges/queensboro.html
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) 16:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Queensboro 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/20080625231345/http://www.haks.net/projects.php?id=67 to http://www.haks.net/projects.php?id=67
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612043422/http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-02-28/local/28656544_1_queens-landmark-queensboro-bridge-mayor-ed-koch to http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-02-28/local/28656544_1_queens-landmark-queensboro-bridge-mayor-ed-koch
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) 04:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: : In what way do you believe the current 2010 image to be superior? The composition is haphazardly cut-off at the bottom, it's tilted, etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A night image does not allow the reader to clearly see the bridges' superstructure.  It's a nice image, but it's not appropriate for the lede image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of articles which are led by night images: Colosseum, Jefferson Memorial, Schwäbisch Hall, etc. In each case, while some architectural details may be more visible during the day, a night photo brings with it its own unique features which are not visible during the day, and the overall impact of the image is at least as strong as a day photo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already said it's a nice image, as an image, and would be fine elsewhere in the article (if it wasn't already stuffed with pics), it's just not the best way to present what the bridge looks like.  As for other articles, rememeber WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.I'm not married to the current picture, but there aren't a lot of contemporary images which would be appropriate.  Maybe :File:Queensboro Bridge from above.jpg, :File:Queensboro Bridge, 2000.JPG, :File:Queensboro Bridge 228.JPG, or :File:Ed koch edited.jpg. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of sharpness/resolution, my image shows the superstructure in a far more detailed manner than the current one or any of the ones you have linked. The underside of the bridge is also a rather interesting architectural feature, and is not shown well on any of those either. So no matter how you look at it mine is more suitable: if you look at it thumbnail size, mine is a more aesthetically pleasing image that will draw readers to the article; if you blow it up to full-res, mine simply has more detail. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not compare the images at their full resolution, compare them as the reader is going to see them, at the size they're presented at in the infobox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I have said: "mine is a more aesthetically pleasing image that will draw readers to the article." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: An image in the article can not draw readers to the article, because they have to be reading the article in the first place to see it. Your image is aesthetically pleasing, I agree, but the purpose of a lede image is not to be aesthetically pleasing, it is to present the subject in a clear and straightforward manner for the benefit of the reader.  The place for aesthetically pleasing images is elsewhere in the article.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! I just realized that the image you're pushing for is literally your image.  You've made your argument in favor of your image, and I have made mine against it.  I think, considering your conflict of interest in regard to the image, that it would be best for you and I to allow other editors to have their say, including whether they think one of the other images I mentioned above might be preferable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead image is often used by Google as the default Google-infobox image, so a good image absolutely will draw people to click on the corresponding Wikipedia link from Google, which is the primary external driver of Wikipedia traffic. And even at the small resolution of the infobox, you can see that the current image is a poor representation of the subject due to the tilt and bad composition. And it is absolutely valid to argue for one's own image in an article. But yes, we have said all we really need to say, so it'll be more productive to let others have a voice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I disagree with your assessment of the current image, but, yes, let's let some air into the room and let others have their say.BTW you have every reason to be pleased with your image, it's very good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

text: *Your image is better, good replacement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Good use of this image at this point in the article. MrBill3 (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: Why is it spelled -boro and not -borough? Is that slang? --2A00:C1A0:4888:3000:C00A:4D28:AA6C:8024 (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not slang, exactly, just an informal shortening of "borough" that's sometimes used.  In this case, it's in the official name of the bridge. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why -boro and not -borough?  

message: I was under the impression that Yorkville started at 79th St. (its page says as much), but the lead claims the bridge connects to it. Should this be replaced with a reference to the Upper East Side instead? ShabShoral (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yorkville 

message: Today I converted the plain-text subheadings in the "In popular culture" section to actual wikitext subheadings, but Beyond My Ken reverted my edit with no explanation. Properly formatting the subheadings has clear advantages -- besides being consistent with general practice and style on Wikipedia, they enable the reader to navigate to the subsections from the TOC and to edit those individual subsections. It's also important for internal consistency -- all the other sections in the article have proper wikitext subheadings. BMK, what is the advantage of your way? Moreover, in the interests of civility and cooperation, I respectfully ask BMK that if you're going to revert my edits, you provide an explanation of why you think your preference is better. Thank you. --Albany NY (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The advantage is that it doesn't clutter up the TOC with unnecessary headings.  Anyone wanting to see pop culture info can simply go to the main heading and scroll down, it's not an inconvenience.  It's simply not necessary to have formal headings. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Subheadings

message: The towers used to have "spires" that fit into the "sockets" still visible today. They were removed some time in the '50s I think. I have found several pictures of them but I can't figure out how to upload them.
TRIKER1 (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spires 

message: The article lists current bus service in detail, but not which subway lines travel over the bridge. Odd. 2603:7000:2444:A00:A004:914F:15F9:D719 (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No subway lines travel over the bridge right now, and none ever have. The bridge did have elevated tracks, but they were removed eight decades ago. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subway lines not listed