Talk:Grand Canyon Skywalk

message: According to the documentary and the official site, the bridge can hold over 71 million pounds and not just 700 tons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.190.253.150 (talk • contribs).
:Whats the link to your source? J.reed  07:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect!

message: The text of this article is copied directly from the official site. Is there any more information that can be added to this article? —BassBone (my talk · my contributions) 07:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism!

message: Considering the fact that the skywalk is just a loop and doesn't connect or cross anything, can it really be called a bridge? Grhs126student 00:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Platform? Ball of pain 23:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Bridge to Nowhere? - AbstractClass 16:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ...you'd definitely call that a bridge. That's not to say "platform" isn't a better description. ed g2s • talk 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bridge? 

message: - 01:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article 

message: They do not allow cameras on the skywalk itself.  We were extremely disappointed to learn this just as we were about to get on it and had already paid our outrageous fees.  That's what we went there for.  I wish I had seen this website first and saved our family $450.
As noted in the heading above.  142.151.160.64 04:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't open to the public yet, it will be on the 28th. Even when it is open expect it to take a few months before a pic shows up. You can check out the links for artists renderings. -Ravedave 04:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.foxnews.com/images/268263/0_22_grand_canyon_skywalk_2.jpg - AbstractClass 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are some pretty good pictures here, not sure about the copyright though: http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2007/grand-canyon-skywalk-p1.php Paulfp 20:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get a picture? 

message: It can withstand magnitude 8 earthquakes up to 50 miles away?  Big deal!  My house can withstand magnitude 10 earthquakes 1000 miles away.  It's the close ones I'd worry about.  :)  --205.201.141.146 15:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrasing might have been odd. But it's easily possibly your house wouldn't stand a magnitude 8 earthquake 50 miles away. An a magnitude 10 earthquake 1000 miles away may very well be more destructive then a magnitude 8 earthquake 50 miles away. Nil Einne 09:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In terms of destructive force, a magnitude 10 earthquake is way more powerful then most nuclear blasts. Of course, earthquakes lack the aftereffects of radiation Nil Einne 09:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd phrasing 

message: I thought its floor is two inches thick, not four.
http://news.com.com/2300-1008_3-6169001-3.html?tag=ne.gall.pg
Schmoopie 21:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct numbers 

message: Don´t go to skywalk. I´ve been there. 75 $ is usury.217.224.119.250 09:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reports I've read, most recently in the Salt Lake Tribune, was that the fee to go on the Skywalk is $25, however you still need to pay to enter the reservation.  That would be an additional cost I do not have handy --however I've read on a few places that the $25 is only for going on the bridge, nothing else before that. --Bobak 02:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This person's blog (which I present only by way of explanation, I don't claim it to be a reliable reference) says $25+$50, totalling $75 per person. His experience wasn't very good, in general. Darryl Revok 17:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admission Price? 

message: "The attraction is open to visitors for a fee of $25 (USD) per person to walk out on the Skywalk. In addition, visitors must purchase a tour package of $49.95 (USD) per person. Alternatively, visitors can buy a tour package starting at $74.95 to $199.00 (USD) per person that includes the Skywalk."
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!
199.00 TO WALK OUT ON A LEDGE AND COME BACK, you can not be serious! --Krakko 03:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's $75 at minimum, the tour package has other stuff like dinner other tours etc. -Ravedave 04:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe that's why it's called Guano point?
-- I visited on May 8th 2007. I took one of the tours to get there that included everything (to the Skywalk, the lunch @ Guano point, Cowboy town, etc) for $150 and the price we paid to the tour operators was $27/person for the Skywalk itself to "avoid the long hour line at the Skywalk itself". When we arrived there we no lines to buy tickets which I was told was $26.75 including tax (tax?) but there were lines to take your bags from you, especially your cameras and cell phones. The price of the picture which we passed on was over $22, I think it was $23 though.
-- I visited on Memorial Day Weekend, and we had a great time! We opted for the Tranquility Package which is about $150 per person, but ALSO includes an overnight stay in a private cabin, 3 meals, and you sleep at the Hualipai Ranch, with an awesome view of the canyon and a sunrise wake up call so you don't miss it! The real value of Grand Canyon West is the whole package and NOT just the skywalk. The skywalk is about 2500 feet above the nearest ground, and 4000 feet to the Colorado River. The website quite clearly states no cameras or other personal items. The benefit of spending the night was that we were the first 10 people on in the morning, and we had about 45 minutes on the bridge pretty much all to ourselves. It was a perfect romantic getaway. Especially compared to some of the other GC "attractions" that have you pay a LOT more for a LOT less.--209.79.152.8 17:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PRICE!!!! 

message: How do they clean the glass?  I saw one place that indicated they have to lift out the panels to clean them.  Lots of people are curious about this aspect of the project.208.157.230.30 16:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning the Skywalk 

message: "The horseshoe-shaped glass walkway, at a 1,200 meter (4,000 ft) height above the floor of the canyon exceeds those of the world's largest skyscrapers.[1] The Skywalk is not directly above the main canyon, Granite Gorge, which contains the Colorado River, but instead extends over a side canyon and affords a view into the main canyon.[2] USGS topographic maps[1] show the elevation at the Skywalk's location as 1454 m (4,770 ft) and the elevation of the Colorado River in the base of the canyon as 354 m (1,161 ft)."
1454 - 354 is only 1100, not 1200 meters. Which of the two is correct? Fram 20:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Height

message: Can people please try to not include their personal opinions if at all possible? This is not a tourist guide, nor is it a review.
Ekillian 18:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions 

message: dont they usually take preventitive measures against people commiting suicide by jumping off?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.66.110 (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: suicide

message: According to the tour guide (Francisco), they are expanding the airfield to except larger jets.  The long term goal is to build a casino/hotel.  The landing strip is actively being worked on, but I haven't seen any sign of a hotel site.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zugarekd (talk • contribs) 13:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: Can we get a number for how many people fall off of this every year?  If not for the skywalk then is there a number for the Grand Canyon itself? 74.249.167.142 (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deaths

message: Is there a source/citation that definitively and accurately provides the exact height of the Skywalk glass above the terrain that is directly below it?  To say that it is 4,000 feet above the bottom of the Grand Canyon is stretching credibility, given that the Colorado River (ie, the bottom of the Canyon) is over a mile away.  That's like saying that the Pasadena City Hall is 1,068 feet high (206' above its base, but 1,068' above the Pacific Ocean).
Page 41 of the March-2008 National Geographic shows a photo looking straight down through the glass that certainly makes it look like quite a free-fall drop.  However, 4,000 feet?  Hardly.
I have Google-mapped the "terrain"  data.  You will note the scale bar at bottom left.  If you interpolate the Skywalk's 60' extension outward from the rim, using that scale bar, you will see that, at the very most, the Skywalk hovers over the 4,200 foot contour line.
Now, given that the Skywalk itself on that same map appears to be sitting at just under 4,800 feet in altitude, this means that the uninterrupted vertical drop from the Skywalk to the terrain directly below it is, at most, 600 feet.
Not 4,000.
And even 600 is stretching it; in actual fact, I think the terrain directly under the Skywalk is a bit higher than the 4,200 foot contour line, and, of course, the Skywalk itself sits at the rim somewhat below the 4,800 foot contour line.  This means that the vertical drop is likely a bit less than 600 feet.  Or, in deference to the wonderful concept of Newtonian Mechanics, if one were to drop an apple from the bottom of the glass of the Skywalk, it would fall just under 600' (or just under 182.88 metres ) before hitting the Earth.
--Atikokan (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vertical Drop 

message: everyone goes only for the skywalk.
difficult travel, not directly over the river, disturbing the environment, crass commercialism.
take your pick  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.230.215.25 (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  misleading 

message: "The road to the Skywalk is very poorly marked from Las Vegas. After turning off from the main road one must travel 11 miles down a dirt road that will coat one's car in fine dust. Whenever someone passes, one is lost in a cloud of dust for a few seconds. The road is narrow and bumpy." - This sounds extremely POV. Are there citations that can verify this, or is this simply opinion? Zarcadia (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: "Sa’ Nyu Wa (Home of the Eagle)" - right beneath the Skywalk with a plaza - is not noted in the article. What is it and should it be in the article? --77.4.57.253 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sa’ Nyu Wa 

message: The second paragraph of the “Access and Pricing” section was added on 20 June 2009, with no references.  A reference was added at 19:34, 27 August 2009, pointing to this blog entry dated 25 August – however, the relevant text in the blog entry appears to be drawn from the Wikipedia article.  Who’s citing whom here? Cactus Wren (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference? 

message: While I feel the need for the copyright violation concern to be raised, the copyvio box is, well, ugly. I've commented it out but left it in the source until it can be sorted. EugeneKay 00:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyvio boxes may be ugly, but they exist for a reason: not only to obscure the copyright violation, but also to instruct interested contributors how to repair it either by rewriting the content in the linked temporary space or by writing for permission. Please don't obscure these, as doing so may prevent actual copyvio material being repaired. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Violation 

message: While text in the article does duplicate the tagged webpage, , the webpage was authored on August 25, 2009, while the content was added to Wikipedia on June 20. Additionally, the webpage does reference Wikipedia, if not sufficiently to satisfy licensing requirements (which requires a direct link). While it's always important to investigate duplicated text, in this case it seems Wikipedia is in the clear. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright investigation: no infringement of the tagged source

message: I have removed the information on the page that related to the address, phone number, and admissions fees. This information belongs on a tourist information page, so it is not needed here. Wikipedia is also a neutral encyclopedia, so please refrain from adding information here. Since I am unlikely to be watching this page, please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-encyclopedic information 

message: thanks for at least pinging me today, when deleting my edits not for the first  but for the second time.
how about sharing your apparent content expertise (which I admit I lack) and helping to move and not just re-move a carefully sourced and referenced sentence? 
But I guess not. I recall reading you dont think the addition is worthy because too speculative, but that you "wouldnt revert it when added to the Grand Canyon page". 
so i'll do that, unless you can you tell me where you would put it, and removing it for a third time....:-)--Wuerzele (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  esplanade edit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Grand Canyon Skywalk. 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/20130607100230/http://www.hualapaitourism.com/questions.php to http://www.hualapaitourism.com/questions.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131026202231/http://www.grandcanyonwest.com/skywalktour.php to http://www.grandcanyonwest.com/skywalktour.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) 03:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Grand Canyon Skywalk. 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/20070927200605/http://www.discoverychannel.ca/flipbook/flip.aspx?fid=345 to http://www.discoverychannel.ca/flipbook/flip.aspx?fid=345
*Added  tag to http://broadband.discoverychannel.ca/discovery/?id=1161
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) 09:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified