Talk:Penang Bridge

message: It should be more clear in which direction you pay the toll - "Perai toll plaza (enter bridge only)" doesn't mean much to most people. Do you pay to leave the island or enter the island? Also, I heard that a Korean company built the bridge. If anyone knows who that was, that would be nice to mention here also. --Commking 03:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You only have to pay when you enter Penang island, this is the same case for the nearby ferry service. I was travelling on the bridge last night, wonder if the toll fare of vehicles should be listed in the article. And it needs some copyediting too. I'm not sure about the company who built the bridge though. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 08:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The bridge is 80 km in length? furthermore 8.4 mile doesnt correspond to 80 km. It's roughly 13 km instead. __earth (Talk) 02:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False information 

message: Does anyone else feel this way, or is it just me that has a personal gripe with the stated official length of this bridge.  I have traveled it many times already and I do not believe it should be stated as being 13.5 km long.  Here is the break down that I have been able to measure while driving it.
Shore to shore, is about 8.05 km.  It is stated on this page that the over water is 8.4 km and i think is a pretty generous figure here.
Mainland elevated side is about 0.4 km, and the toll both is another 0.3 km further inland (0.7 km from shore)
Island elevated sided is a bit more complicated since the road seperates into 2 different directions.  Going north towards GeorgeTown, both directions are elevated for about 0.4 km inland.  Going south and leaving the bridge is only elevated for about 50 meters, whereas the on ramp from the south is elevated about 0.6 km on the shore.
My guess is that the 13.5 km stated distance is the total road length distance for the whole bridge project including completely crounded roads from the previously exiting roads, which to me is a great over statement of what a normal person would consider a part of this bridge length.  It is pretty easy to verify the distances I have provide from the google maps:  http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&q=&z=14&ll=5.357538,100.353069&spn=0.050077,0.088749&t=k&om=1
To me this just shows how a country can mis-lead the rest of the world in how long their bridge really is.
I would like to see this wiki page changed to a more realistic distance preferably shore-to-shore of 8.05 km or elevated bridge distance 8.5 km to 9.05 km. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.111.187.7 (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote your figure. Else, WP:OR. Good day. __earth (Talk) 12:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mis-leading information 

message: :Image:Pluslogo.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 insure 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) 04:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Pluslogo.jpg

message: In Aug-Sep 2018,  removed a large part of the article. Is this desirable? Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 17:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the ping. Allow me to explain the rationale for my edits/removals (). The two major sections I removed are a list of the specifications of the bridge and the table of toll rates. I did so on the basis of WP:INDISCRIMINATE: the listed specifications, while sourced, were overly detailed, and were not used to elaborate on a matter, or otherwise serve a purpose, in the main prose of the article. The parameters available in the infobox are, I believe, adequate. The table of toll rates was also removed because of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, specifically that "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention." I took this to include toll rate tables as they are also updated relatively often and would quickly fall out-of-date. The remainder of those edits consisted of updating the road junction list to use a template (that complies with MOS:RJL), cutting down on overlinking in the 'see also' section, and other minor cleanup tasks. – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 06:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining, . I agree with the toll rates, though think the bridge specs are useful as other bridges have similar info. Secondly, some of the photos, such as the one on the bridge roadway is useful to show what a bridge user would see. I can restore them but thought I should run it by you and other editors first. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 02:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah I agree that the bridge specs could be useful, but the way it was listed at the time just felt out of place to me. I think the specs should be explained/described in prose format, rather than a plain list, and given some context (but you and other editors might disagree). Some of the stats, in any case, looks like they could be added to the bridge infobox. Also I completely missed that I removed the photos - sorry about that! I've restored them back into the article (feel free to relocate them if you wish). – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 11:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks very much. I'll write out the specs in prose when I can find some time and motivation. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 13:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to Penang_Bridge#Features. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 20:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of info