Talk:Millau Viaduct

message: Candyland?  The text under the picture says it is in Millau, candyland. I can't seem to find out how to correct this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.232.29.95 (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that and looking in  edit mode see nothing there either. Purge your cache. Doug Weller talk 17:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption 

message: There's far too many external links on this page, some of which may be most useful as external links and some of which may be best incorporated as references. I'm not sure which to keep or which to integrate so I've moved them to this talk page for people more familiar with the topic to sort through. If others disagree with this removal, feel free to re-add the links but please consider the advice at Wikipedia:External links. Otherwise, re-add the  tag but with an updated date parameter. ClaretAsh 12:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Is toll plaza in 4 km north of bridge or 6 km north of bridge?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MEOGLOBAL (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toll Plaza 

message: I have found (from this source: http://atkinson-and-company.co.uk/index.php/photography/11-millau-viaduct ) out that the radius of the viaduct is 20km in length. Maybe it should be mentioned here? I just wanted to let any superiors know if I could add it in EoghanG93 (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, add it. Your source is not necessarily impeccable, but at least one of the photographs fully supports the proposition. El Ingles (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Horizontal Curve Radius of the Viaduct: 

message: Pier 2 total height: 343 m (1,125 ft)
But, when summed up: pier to roadway's level 245 m (804 ft) + road's thickness 4.2 m (13 ¾ ft) + mast 87 m (285 ft) = 336.2 m (1102 ¾)
So, there is 6.8 m (22 ¼ ft) missing somewhere, but where? And how can clearance be 270 metres (890 ft), if tallest pylon is 245 metres and road is 4.2 m thick, totaling 249.2 m (818 ft)? 85.217.42.90 (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  height? 

message: We seem to have attracted some serious experimenters - I have taken the text back three days but may have lost so important changes- sorry but I am busy else where. I did cross the bridge on the 5th September so I can confirm that the bridge is still there. To our new experimenters can I suggest you try to write some articles on the Tunnel de Pas d'Escalette also on the A75 or Lac du Salagou- Wikipedia is even more rewarding when you have contributed something. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual editor vandalism 

message: I am concerned that no one (outside the US) would ever guess that this refers to the 'Aire du Viaduc de Millau´ a Aire de repos to the north of the viaduct noted for its two panorama points. I would like to do a small rewrite- changing the section title to use the official name and introducing the wording 'aire de repos'. I am asking for opinions first. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rest area of Brocuéjouls-Aire du Viaduc de Millau or Aire de repos du Viaduc de Millau 

message: Is this a mistake?
"1. the high solution, envisaging a 2,500 m (8,200 ft) viaduct more than 200 m (660 ft) above the river;
2. the low solution, descending into the valley and crossing the river on a 200 m (660 ft) bridge, then a viaduct of 2,300 m (7,500 ft) extended by a tunnel on the Larzac side."
It gives the height for both as "660ft", which makes "high" and "low" meaningless, and it gives the height as 890ft elsewhere.AnnaGoFast (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake? 

message: It would be interesting if anyone can find sources to add to the article: the opponents variously said the bridge wouldn't be used, or it wouldn't solve the congestion (too little impact), or it would take too much traffic away from the town (too much impact)... who was right? Did the bridge fix the problem of too much traffic? Does traffic increase measurably when people come to see the bridge? 72.208.150.248 (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I second an update to the impact of the bridge, and would further be interested if there was any kind of notable reception to the bridge--it's design, especially. Honestly, I find it hideously out-of-place in contrast to the surrounding area, but I can't be the only one who's had an opinion. Even if it's just some bridge designers calling it an impressive feat of engineering, it could add to the article. 147.226.205.119 (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Millau Viaduct. 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/20110706132707/http://vigie.awt.be/vigie2/detailsoc.xsql?idsoc=10516&f_texte=Greisch&f_critrech=B&orig=trouvesoc&f_place=&certif=&lg=en to http://vigie.awt.be/vigie2/detailsoc.xsql?idsoc=10516&f_texte=Greisch&f_critrech=B&orig=trouvesoc&f_place=&certif=&lg=en
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) 02:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Millau Viaduct. 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/20130708175157/http://www.leviaducdemillau.com/en_index.php to http://www.leviaducdemillau.com/en_index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130708175157/http://www.leviaducdemillau.com/en_index.php to http://www.leviaducdemillau.com/en_index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130708175157/http://www.leviaducdemillau.com/en_index.php to http://www.leviaducdemillau.com/en_index.php
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) 06:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Millau Viaduct. 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/20070701212957/http://www.iabse.org/association/awards/ostrac/Millau.php to http://www.iabse.org/association/awards/ostrac/Millau.php
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) 09:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
*  ()
*  (discussion)
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: Does anyone know this, or where this information can be found? It's probably in a French-language journal or other document, & unfortunately I only speak & read tourist French.
Any pointers gratefully received. talk (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics - Zenith/plumb angles of the piers.

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The Construction Records subsection states that "The highest road bridge deck in Europe, 270 metres (890 ft) above the Tarn at its highest point; it is nearly twice as tall as the previous tallest vehicular bridges in Europe, the Europabrücke in Austria and the Italia Viaduct in Italy." This is not wrong, per se, but it is misleading, as the first half of the sentence is about deck height, the second about how tall it is, from base to top of the structure, so structural height. I think it would be better to specify by how much it bested the previous European record for deck height (the Italia viaduct, by 10 m) and then discuss structural height. Should we make two separate points? Or keep the single point but split and expand the sentence? Mariupolo (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  More confusion between height and tallness, under Construction Records